Proceedings of

UNESCO Chair Programme on

Cultural Heritage and Risk Management

INTERNATIONAL TRAINING
COURSE (ITC) on DISASTER RISKMANAGEMENT of
CULTURAL HERITAGE,
Ritsumeikan University, andInternational Symposium“Working Internationally Toward
The Integrated Protection ofCultural Heritage from Disasters”
2017, 12th year

28th August to 16th September 2017
At Kyoto, Kumano and Kobe, Japan

Co-Organized by Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural
Heritage, Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH), Kyoto, Japan, and the
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage (NICH), JapanIn Cooperation with UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOM, ICOMOS / ICORP

Date of Publication: February 2017
Published by: Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University
58 Komatsubara Kita-machi, Kita-ku, Kyoto 603-8341 Japan
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage
13-9 Ueno-Park, Taito-ku, Tokyo 110-8712 Japan
In cooperation with: UNESCO
ICCROM
ICOM
ICOMOS / ICORP
Authors: Participants of ITC2017 and former participants of ITC
Coordinated by: Rohit JIGYASU, UNESCO Chair Holder, Professor
Dowon KIM, Associate Professor
Edited by: Rohit JIGYASU, UNESCO Chair Holder, Professor
Dowon KIM, Associate Professor
Mingji CUI, Senior Researcher
Rui BANNO, Administrative Staﬀ of R-DMUCH
Layout by: Nami HAYASHIDA,
Graduate Student, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University
1-1-1 Noji Higashi, Kusatsu-shi, Shiga Pref. 525-8577 Japan
Printed by: HOKUTO Printing Co., Ltd.
38-2 Shimogamo Takagi-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto Japan© All rights reserved.
No part of this book may be reproduced, restored in retrieval system, or transmitted in any form without the written
permission from the Publisher.

Preface
The “Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH)”

was established as a permanent research institution in 2013 and has handed over activities from former
organization as “Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of Urban Cultural Heritage” which was started by
Prof. Kenzo TOKI from 2003.

The “UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage”
started from 2006 as one of our important educational activities, and fortunately we can continue it up

to this year supported by UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOM, ICOMOS/ICORP, Ritsumeikan University and manynational and international organizations. And we are very much fortunate for that NICH (the Independent

Administrative Institution National Institutes for Cultural Heritage in Japan) has been a co-organizationby this chair program from 2017. I would like to thank these colleagues for supporting us and participantsfrom all over the world. The purposes of this training course are education of practical experts in eachﬁeld of cultural heritage conservation and disaster risk management, and development of draft plan fordisaster risk management to secure the safety of people and cultural value in each cultural heritage siteand historical city. I hope these plans to be actual projects in each country and contribute to culturaladvancement in the world.

Through the ITC in 2017 with theme as “Integrated Protection of Immovable and Movable Cultural
Heritage from Disasters”, most of participants thought about developing their case project toward
multiple and simultaneous disaster risk, and for both of immovable and movable heritage. The outcomes
were fantastic although the training is limited in short period, and some of participants already begin theirproject in their actual site.
And International Symposium of “the Working Internationally toward the Integrated Protection ofCultural Heritage from Disasters” was held in the last day of ITC. In this opportunity, selected three of ITC
2017 participants made a wonderful presentation. And all the speakers, audiences and staffs who are
the important participants on this symposium, could share the lessons and experiences of past disaster
response, preparedness and recovery, and we could constructively discuss about future goals.

Thank you all again for supporting this activity, and please keep in touch with us for inheriting cultural
heritages for next generation.

Takeyuki OKUBO

Director, R-DMUCH
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Ritsumeikan University

Preface
Each year disasters caused by natural and human induced hazards cause enormous damage to cultural
heritage, which include historic buildings, urban areas, museums, libraries and archives depriving
communities of their irreplaceable cultural assets. Moreover, damages to cultural landscapes and local
ﬂora and fauna in general cause loss of valued ecosystem services thereby putting sustainability of local

communities at risk. Often disasters also aﬀect the intangible cultural heritage of traditional knowledge,
practices, skills and crafts that ensure cultural continuity, as well as the means for its protection andmaintenance.

There are many global examples that demonstrate the impact of disasters on cultural heritage properties.

Damages to heritage worldwide due to disasters include Historic Settlements in Central Italy andBagan Archaeological Site in Myanmar due to earthquakes in 2016, World Heritage Monument Zones
of Kathmandu Valley due to 2015 earthquakes in Nepal; Fires in the World Heritage Town of Lijiang in
China in 2013 and 2014; and the Old Town of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom in 2002. In Korea, arson

damaged the Sunraemon Gate in 2008, which is designated as cultural property number one. Cultural
heritage sites have also suffered enormous damages due to human induced hazards like conflicts andvandalism, such as in the case of Aleppo and Palmyra in Syria and Timbuktu Shrines in Mali and Bamiyan
Buddhas in Afghanistan.
Climate change is increasing the number of disasters and their devastating impacts. From 1988 to 2007,76 per cent of all disaster events were hydrological, meteorological or climatological in nature. These
hazards are adversely impacting on natural and cultural heritage. Take for example the case of forest ﬁresin Eastern Europe in 2008, which posed a high risk to the archaeological site of Olympia in Greece. Flashﬂoods due to unprecedented heavy rains in Indiaʼs Uttarakhand State in 2013 destroyed many heritage

structures in the region, while storms in Western Europe in 2010 ﬂooded many historic town centres suchas Rome. Also heavy rains in Thailand caused the World Heritage Site of Ayutthaya to remain submergedin water thereby causing insurmountable loss to the foundations of historic built structures. The likelihoodof increased weather extremes in future therefore gives great concern that the number or scale ofweather-related disasters will also increase thereby dramatically increasing their impact on heritage in not
too distant future.

Needless to say, disasters not only cause material damage but also put the lives of visitors, staﬀ and local

communities in and around Cultural heritage Properties at risk. These also aﬀect the livelihoods linked toheritage and the revenues generated by the local government and the private sector through tourism.

Finally, the psychological impact on communities due to loss of heritage to which they are closely
associated cannot be underestimated.
Considering the above mentioned challenges, disaster risk management of cultural heritage is need of

the hour. On one hand, this would necessitate each heritage site and museum to have its own disaster risk
management plan that is tailored to its speciﬁc characteristics. On the other hand, cultural heritage needs

to be well integrated into overall disaster risk management policies and plans at national, regional andlocal levels.
Moreover heritage sites and museums should undergo integrated risk assessment that takes into accountmultiple hazards / threats, multiple physical, social, economic, institutional and attitudinal vulnerabilities
and exposure and consequent potential impact on heritage attributes and the associated values,
peopleʼs safety, economy and livelihoods and on the social structure. Various components of disaster risk
management plan of cultural heritage before, during after disaster would include prevention, mitigation

and preparedness measures, emergency response procedures, and recovery and rehabilitation process.
However investing in disaster risk reduction through mitigation and preparedness makes much more
economic sense than investing heavily on response and recovery as previous experience in Nepal,
Myanmar and Italy have aptly demonstrated. Going by the widely accepted principle of ʻBuilding Back
Betterʼ, recovery and rehabilitation process should incorporate mitigation of risks for future disasters.
Need for close coordination and public awareness:

In order to undertake eﬀective measures for disaster risk reduction, there needs to be greater cooperation
between agencies and professionals from heritage and disaster management fields. For emergency

response, heritage professionals and agencies should work closely with civic defence organizations.
Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction adopted in 2015 has clearly advocated reducing risks
to cultural heritage in the national policies on disaster risk management. Moreover DRM for cultural
heritage should be integrated into various development sectors such as sanitation, water supply, housing,environment, infrastructure and services. This would also require capacity building initiatives at various
levels.
Need for Capacity Building:This necessitates building the capacity of site managers, civic defence agencies as well as decision makers
from heritage as well as disaster management ﬁelds on reducing disaster risks to cultural heritage. The

International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage organized by the Instituteof Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University as part of the UNESCO Chair
Programme on Cultural Heritage and Risk Management has been successfully achieving this since its
inception in 2006. The course organised in close cooperation with ICCROM, ICOMOS-ICORP and UNESCOWorld Heritage Centre is now in its 13th year and has so far trained 127 experts from 56 countries. These
include representatives from government institutions, departments, universities NGOs and private
consultants from cultural heritage as well as relevant disaster management ﬁelds.

ITC 2017 and its proceedings
I am pleased to present the proceedings of the 12th International Training Course which was attended by

11 participants from 11 countries in Europe, Africa, Latin America and Asia Paciﬁc. The theme of the course
was “Towards Integrated Protection of Immovable and Movable Cultural Heritage from Disasters”. During

the course, the trainees deepened their understanding on various aspects of disaster risk managementof cultural heritage in Japan and the World. All the lectures, site visits, exercises and workshops were
performed by the international and Japanese team of experts in Kyoto, Kobe and Kumano.
From this year, Ritsumeikan University also started cooperation with the Japanese National Institutes for
Cultural Heritage (NICH) so that trainees could learn risk management for both immovable and movablecultural heritage. Special lectures and practical exercises related to disaster risk management of movable

heritage were conducted by the renowned museum experts at Kyoto National Museum, ICCROM andthe Smithsonian Institution. International Symposium “Working Internationally toward the Integrated
Protection of Cultural Heritage from Disasters” was held on the ﬁnal day of the course and it was attended
by approximately 75 Japanese and international experts and public. A brief report on the Symposium isalso included in the proceedings.
The proceedings also contain brief reports on disaster risk management plans for case study sites from thehome countries of the participants based on the outlines prepared by them during the course. Hope thisyearʼs proceedings will serve as a good resource for disseminating the knowledge in this important area.

Rohit JIGYASUUNESCO Chair Holder, Professor,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto

Preface
First of all, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban
Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH), which has regularly held the International Training

Course (ITC) on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage since establishing its UNESCO Chair in
2006.
In July 2014, the National Institutes for Cultural Heritage (NICH) established the National Task Force for
the Japanese Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Mitigation (CH-DRM) Network Headquarters with the aimof developing a network for disaster risk management and mitigation as it relates to cultural heritage.
This was triggered by the salvage operations for disaster-aﬀected cultural property following the March2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, which caused serious damage to heritage in the region. Based on thisexperience the seven institutions of NICH, including national museums and national cultural property

research institutes, are currently working together on various CH-DRM projects. Over the past three years,
we have strived to expand and strengthen our network with support and cooperation from various sectors
including museums, local governments, private volunteer groups, and others.

As part of the activities of the CH-DRM Network, I am very pleased that we were able to participate inthis meaningful training course. In past years, the ITC has covered various issues related to emergency
management and disaster risk mitigation with a focus on architecture and monuments, such as buildings
and townscapes. This year, with cooperation from ICOM, it dealt with movable cultural heritage such as

art objects, as well as intangible cultural heritage, such as festivals, oﬀering the chance to consider disasterrisk mitigation of cultural heritage from a more comprehensive perspective. I hope this new initiative
helped participants deepen their understanding of Japan and the world's cultural heritage preservationand disaster risk mitigation.

Another important aspect of this training is that it brings together professionals in a range of specialties

from around the world. This in itself allows them to deepen their friendships and networks, thereby
contributing to the revitalization of international exchange in the cultural heritage sector. We hope thatthe knowledge gained from this training will be applied to future cultural heritage disaster prevention
eﬀorts and look forward to the further development of this training.

Finally, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to D-MUCH and everyone else who helped organize
the ITC for providing such a wonderful opportunity.

Jōhei SASAKI

Executive Director, Kyoto National Museum
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage

Table of Contents
Preface3

1.

11Introduction

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 12th International Training Course 2017 12
1.2 Timetable

2.

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects

34

by ITC 2017 Participants

37

by Dorji WANGCHUK, from Bhutan

38

2.1 Ta Dzong National Museum of Bhutan, Paro,
2.2 Protecting the Indigenous Batad Rice Terraces from Risks of Disasters,
by Abner Omaging LAWANGEN, from Philippines

48

2.3 Gallipoli Historical Site, by Hamit BIRTANE, from Turkey

53

2.4 Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage: The Case of Museumof Malawi, by Innocent Hudson MANKHWALA, from Malawi

59

2.5 Disaster Risk Reduction for George Town UNESCO World Heritage Site,by Ming Chee ANG, from Malaysia

64

2.6 Fostering Resilience of Cultural Heritage Site of São Luiz do Paraitinga, Brazil,
by Victor MARCHEZINI, from Brazil

67

2.7 Disaster Risk Anaysis in Town of Luang Prabang World Heritage Site, Lao PDR,
by Virasith PHOMSOUVANH, from Lao PDR
2.8 Sri Pratap Singh Museum, Lal Mandi, India, by Sayma IQBAL, from India

73
81

2.9 Implementation of Disaster Risk Management for the “Zoothèque”
at the National Museum of Natural History, Paris,
by Bertrand Pascal LAVEDRINE, from France

93

2.10 Archaeological Site of Paestum, Salerno Province, Italy,
by Domenico GRECO, from Italy
2.11 Old City of Mrauk U, by Khin Aye YEE, from Myanmar

100
106

3.

Activities Undertaken after the International Training Course
by Former Participants

113

by Helen McCracken, from New Zealand, ITC 2012

114

3.1 Ministry for Culture and Heritage, New Zealand,
3.2 CHwB Albania Projects on Risk Management and First Aid Response,by Elena MAMANI, from Albania, ITC 2014

119

3.3 Resilient Cultural Heritage at the World Bank
‒ Learning from the Japanese Expertise ‒ 2017,by Barbara MINGUEZ GARCIA, from Spain, ITC 2016
4.

Report of the International Symposium “Working Internationally toward
the Integrated Protection of Cultural Heritage from Disasters”

126

131

4.1 Background and Objectives132

4.2 Programme

133

4.3 Summaries

134

Epilogue156

Ken OKADA (Head, Promotion Oﬃce, CH-DRM Net, NICH)

156

Kenzo TOKI (Professor, R-DMUCH)

158

Appendix

159

List of Resource Persons

160

List of Participants

163

Photos of ITC 2017164

1 Introduction

1.1 Background and Objectives of
the 12th International Training Course 2017

Disasters and Cultural Heritage
Recent disasters such as Myanmar/Italy earthquake in 2016, Nepal earthquakes in April and May 2015,
earthquake and cyclones in Philippines in 2014, ﬁres in Lijiang, China in 2013 and 2014, the devastatingtsunami in North East of Japan in 2011 and as well as earthquakes that hit Christchurch, New Zealand in2010 and 2011, Haiti and Chile in 2010 have caused enormous loss of life, property and cultural heritage.
This disaster has once again shown that cultural heritage is highly vulnerable to natural disasters such as
earthquake, the Tsunami, ﬁre, ﬂoods and cyclones.
Therefore it is important to undertake proactive measures that can reduce risks to cultural heritage fromthese catastrophic events through adequate mitigation and preparedness. In the post disaster phase,the challenge is how to salvage heritage properties, which are at risk of demolition and to assess their
damage. The long term challenge during recovery phase is how to repair and retroﬁt them and undertakereconstruction that respects tangible as well as intangible heritage values.
In the light of these challenges, comprehensive risk management is essential for the protection ofcultural heritage from disasters. Therefore Cultural Heritage and Risk Management project of Institute ofDisaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH) aims to organize theInternational Training Programme to build the institutional capacity needed to formulate comprehensive
risk management plans that are based on the characteristics of cultural heritage and nature of hazards inthe regional context.
One of the main reasons for extensive damage to cultural heritage is due to ﬂoods, typhoons, cyclones
and other climate related hazards, whose frequency and intensity is increasing due to the impacts ofclimate change. These may also cause secondary hazards such as landslides and thereby exacerbating thedamage. Considering these issues, the 12th International Training Course on Disaster Risk Managementof Cultural Heritage will speciﬁcally focus on “Integrated Protection of Immovable and Movable Cultural
Heritage from Disasters”.

121.1 Background and Objectives of the 12th International Training Course 2017

World Heritage Sites Located in the Earthquake Zones 2008

World Heritage Sites Located in the Earthquake Zones(䖃:Earthquake, 䖃: Cultural and Mixed Heritage, 䖃: Natural Heritage)
By Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of Urban Cultural Heritage,
Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto Japan, 2008
Regional Distribution of World Heritage sites located on the Earthquake Zones

Region100-200 km

100

91
1
3
10

2
10
2
2
10

1

1
11
1
1
1
4

3
1
1
8
6

16
1

6
35

8
23

13

8
2
18
109

36
136

Within
200km

191
1
5
20
2
3
21
1
0
2
1
7
1
1
24
7
0
14
58
0
21
2
54
245

27%
14%
45%
59%
22%
14%
42%
2%
0%
100%
100%
21%
7%
2%
57%
39%
0%
29%
45%
0%
40%
2%
31%
28%

Over 200km
513
6
6
14
7
18
29
56
14

27
13
49
18
11
7
34
70
16
31
87
120
633

73%
86%
55%
41%
78%
86%
58%
98%
100%
0%
0%
79%
93%
98%
43%
61%
100%
71%
55%
100%
60%
98%
69%
72%

Total
704
7
11
34
9
21
50
57
14
2
1
34
14
50
42
18
7
48
128
16
52
89
174
878

Introduction

Cultural/Mix
Australia/New Zealand
Caribbean
Central America
Central Asia
Eastern Africa
Eastern Asia
Eastern Europe
European Russia
Melanesia
Middle Africa
Northern Africa
Northern America
Northern Europe
South America
Southeastern Asia
Sothern Africa
Southern Asia
Southern Europe
Western Africa
Western Asia
Western Europe
NaturalTotal

0-100 km13

Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage,
Ritsumeikan University and Its Training Course

The International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage is a follow-up of therecommendations adopted at the Special Thematic Session on Risk Management for Cultural Heritage
held at UN-WCDR (World Conference on Disaster Reduction) in January 2005 in Kobe, Hyogo, Japan.
One of these recommendations advocated the need for the academic community to develop scientiﬁc
research, education and training programs incorporating cultural heritage in both its tangible andintangible manifestations, into risk management and disaster recovery. The importance of strengthening
knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of disaster prevention at WH properties wasreiterated also by the World Heritage Committee at its 30th session (Vilnius, Lithuania, July 2006).
Furthermore, the “Declaration”, adopted at the International Disaster Reduction Conference (IDRC) of
Davos (August 2006) confirmed that “concern for heritage, both tangible and intangible, should beincorporated into disaster risk reduction strategies and plans, which are strengthened through attention
to cultural attributes and traditional knowledge.” The Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction
recently adopted at the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, Japan has further
highlighted the importance of protecting cultural heritage from disasters. Cultural heritage has also been
included one of the sectors in the new ten essentials that have been adopted by UNISDRʼs resilient city
campaign.
In response to these recommendations by the international community, the Institute of Disaster
Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage at Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH) has been acting as a focal point
for organizing international research, training and information network in the ﬁeld of cultural heritage
risk management and disaster mitigation. Besides R-DMUCH has also functioned as the internationalsecretariat for ICOMOS-International Scientific Committee on Risk Preparedness (ICORP) from 2011 to2016 and many of its faculty are expert members of the Scientiﬁc Committee.
The past training courses has been participated by 116 participants in total from 54countries; East Asia
(Indonesia, South Korea, China, Philippines, Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand), South Asia (India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Maldives), Oceania (Palau, Fiji, New Zealand and Australia),
Central and South America (Peru, Jamaica, Colombia, Mexico, Ecuador, Honduras, Brazil and Panama),
Europe (Serbia, Moldova, Italy, Albania, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Spain and Romania), Middle East
(Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Jordan), Africa (Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Tanzania, Egypt andMorocco).

14

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 12th International Training Course 2017

Objectives and Methodology of the Training Course
The main objective of the course is to provide an overview of the various aspects of disaster risk
management of cultural heritage. In particular, the course provides interdisciplinary training to:✓ Undertake an integrated risk assessment of tangible and intangible, immovable and movablecultural heritage by analyzing their vulnerability to disasters caused by natural and human induced
hazards;✓ Build an integrated system for disaster risk management of cultural heritage, incorporating
prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery measures;✓ Formulate disaster risk management plans for cultural heritage that correspond to the local / urban
and regional disaster management and development plans and policies and humanitarian
response and recovery mechanisms;✓ To learn practical tools, methodologies and skills for disaster risk management of cultural heritage
such as cost beneﬁt analysis, value assessment, budgeting and communication methods withdecision makers such as mayors; and✓ Reinforce the international scientiﬁc support network in order to build the institutional capacity
needed to formulate comprehensive disaster risk management plans that are based on thecharacteristics of cultural heritage and nature of hazards in the national and regional context.
The course comprises lectures, site visits, workshops, discussions, team projects and individual/group
Introduction

presentations. Participants are expected to actively participate throughout the course. The course aims at
promoting the development of collaborations and network building among scholars and professionals in
cultural heritage protection. This course is provided scientiﬁc support by UNESCO and the International
Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM).
Flow Chart of the International Training Course on
Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage 2016
Planning Process of Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage
Risk Assessment

Disaster Mitigation Plan

THEORY and METHODOLOGY
of Disaster Risk Management ofHistoric Urban Environments

Emergency Response

LECTURESSITE VISITS

Recovery Planning

CASE STUDIES on
Disaster Risk Management inKyoto, Kobe and Sasayama

FORMULATION of Disaster Risk Management Plan

WORKSHOPS
CASE STUDY PROJECTS: Fomulating Disaster Risk Management Plan for
Cultural Heritage in Participants’ Countries

15Based on the information obtained from lectures and site visits, and exercises through workshops, thetraining course also sets the goal of raising planning skills in cultural heritage disaster prevention, by
having each participant make a plan during a team project for the prevention of disaster to his/hercountryʼs cultural heritage, in line with each countryʼs respective social and economic situation. In order todo so, the Institute has asked the participants to prepare the relevant materials before coming to Japan,
so that the two participants from each country could learn from each otherʼs experience through thisprocess.

Sub Theme of 2017 International Training Programme:

Towards Integrated Protection of Immovable and Movable Cultural Heritage from
Disasters

Cultural heritage is increasingly exposed to disasters caused by natural and human induced hazards
such as earthquakes, floods, fires, terrorism etc. Recent examples include Earthquakes in Central Italy
and Myanmar in 2016, Nepal earthquake in 2015, Balkan floods in 2014 and ongoing conflicts in Syria
and Yemen. These disasters not only effect the immovable heritage components such as monuments,
archaeological sites and historic urban areas but also cause damage to the movable components that
include museum collections and heritage objects that are in active use such as religious and other artefactsof signiﬁcance to the local community. Both these movable and immovable components are exposed tovarious hazards that necessitate appropriate measures to reduce disaster risks. Also in the aftermath of adisaster many architectural fragments of damaged or collapsed buildings need documentation, handlingand storage similar to movable heritage collections.
Therefore, an integrated approach for movable and immovable heritage is needed for risk assessment of
heritage sites as well as museums and its collections before, during and after a disaster situation. Limited
availability of human and ﬁnancial resources also calls for closer coordination between professionals andinstitutions dealing with heritage sites, museums and the external agencies.
Moreover, integrated disaster risk management involves appropriate mitigation and adaptation strategies
to reduce various risks to movable and immovable heritage components by taking into consideration
their heritage values that are often interdependent. It is also important to recognize many examples of
traditional knowledge evolved by communities through series of trials and errors that demonstrate that
movable and immovable cultural heritage can be an eﬀective source of resilience against disaster risks
and integrate these in larger disaster risk management strategies.
Considering these issues and challenges, the 12th International Training Course will give special focus on
the “Integrated Protection of Immovable and Movable Cultural Heritage from Disasters”.

16

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 12th International Training Course 2017

Flash ﬂoods in Himalayan Region, 2014

Cloudburst in Leh region, India, 2010

Unprecedented heavy rainfall in Balkans in 2014 flooded many historic
towns and villages

Introduction

World Heritage Site of Ayutthaya in Thailand got inundated forweeks due to 2011 Floods

Previous International Training Courses (2006-2016)
ITC 2006

In 2006, which was the first year for this course, eight participants from four countries were invited;
namely India and Pakistan, which were struck by a great earthquake in 2005 in Kashmir; Indonesia, which
suﬀered the Indian Ocean Tsunami triggered by the Sumatra Earthquake in 2004 and the Earthquake on
the Javanese Island in 2004; and Korea, which had suﬀered a big forest ﬁre.
ITC 2007

In 2007, R-DMUCH exchanged MOU with ICCROM and established a criterion for choosing participants
with the support of ICCROM. As a result, eight trainees from Bangladesh, China, Peru and Philippines wereinvited for the training course.
Based on the experience of 2006 training course, it was decided to make closer relation between thelectures, site visits and workshops. Therefore in 2007, several related sets of lectures were held in themornings and workshops in the afternoons. Based on these, discussions were facilitated by the instructors
so that the trainees were able to reﬂect more eﬀectively on the challenges for cultural heritage disastermanagement within their own context.
ITC 2008

The 2008 training course actively built upon the rich experience gathered during the courses held in theprevious two years. This year had participants from ﬁve countries from Asia and Europe, namely Nepal,

17

Bhutan, Iran, Serbia and Chinese Taipei. Eﬀort was made to make this yearʼs course, more ﬁeld-based bydrawing upon the unique opportunity oﬀered by the location of important World Heritage Sites in Kyoto
such as Kiyomizu-dera and Ninna-ji temples. Most of the workshops were, therefore, based on ﬁeld work
undertaken by the participants in these sites. This yearʼs course also put greater emphasis on exposing theparticipants to the methodology for undertaking disaster risk assessment for cultural heritage sites.
ITC 2009

The 2009 training course further evolved on the basis of rich feedback provided by the participants ofthe training courses from previous years. In response to the need for making the course more relevant tospeciﬁc requirements and constraints of the developing countries, it was decided to organize the course
partly in Japan and partly in Nepal.

Moreover, for the first time, the training course had a specific theme, namely “Earthquake risk

management of Historic Urban Areas.” For this purpose, Kyoto and Kathmandu; two historic cities withrich cultural heritage but extremely vulnerable to earthquakes, were chosen as the case study sites forundertaking ﬁeld exercises during the training course.
The first week of the course was organized in Japan and it focused on familiarizing the participants
with the basic methodology for risk assessment and management for cultural heritage properties. The
participants were shown various disaster prevention facilities developed for numerous cultural heritage
sites in Kyoto. Second week in Kathmandu focused on the earthquake vulnerability and capacity of theWorld Heritage Monument Zone of Patan and its surrounding historic urban area, both at building andarea levels.
The UNESCO Chair programme intends to build upon the four years of very rich experience gained
through very active participation of lecturers from Japan and abroad, as well as the international
participants from various countries from Asia, Europe and the Caribbean and further enrich the contentsof the training course in subsequent years.
ITC 2010

Fifth UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage 2010
was held from 13 to 26 September 2010 in Kyoto, Kobe and Sasayama, Japan. In the light of destructive
Haiti earthquake on January 2010, this ﬁfth International Training Course especially focused on emergency

response and long term recovery of wooden and masonry composite Cultural Heritage from disasters.
It was attended by 11 participants from 5 countries; Bhutan, Palau, Peru, Serbia and Turkey.

On the ﬁnal day of the course, the international symposium titled “How to protect Cultural Heritage from
Disaster; Risk Preparedness and Post Disaster Recovery” was organized by Ritsumeikan University and theICOMOS International Committee on Risk Preparedness (ICORP). In the symposium, the current challenges
for protection of cultural heritages taking into account the context of post disaster recovery was discussed
in great depth with international experts from UNESCO, ICOMOS, ICORP and a representative of Kyo-oGokoku-ji Temple; World Cultural Heritage site in Kyoto.
ITC 2011

Sixth UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage
was held from 10 to 24 September 2011 in Kyoto, Kobe and Tohoku area of East Japan. In the light of18

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 12th International Training Course 2017

increasing vulnerability of rapidly urbanizing settlements, the course focused on “Integrated Approachfor Disaster Risk Mitigation of Historic Cities”. The course was attended by 11 participants from 8
countries; Columbia, Jamaica, Kenya, Uganda, China, Mexico, India and Bangladesh.
ITC 2012

Seventh International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage held during
September 2012 in Kyoto, Kobe and Tohoku area of East Japan focused on sustainable recovery of cultural
heritage. Accordingly the theme of the course was “From Recovery to Risk Reduction for Sustainabilityof Historic Areas”.
ITC 2013

The theme of the 8th UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management ofCultural Heritage was “Reducing Disaster Risks to Historic Urban Areas and Their Territorial Settings

through Mitigation”. The course focused on policies and planning measures for mitigating risks to cultural
heritage from multiple hazards such as earthquakes, floods, landslides and fires, especially in rapidly
urbanizing context of developing countries. Special techniques for mitigating risks from earthquakes andﬁres were also highlighted besides policies, planning and design interventions for long term restoration
and rehabilitation of cultural heritage following disaster through a special workshop in the area aﬀectedby the Great East Japan Disaster in 2011.
Introduction

ITC 2014

One of the main reasons for extensive damage to cultural heritage is due to ﬁres resulting from natural(bush/forest fires) or human induced causes (arson, chemical or bomb explosion, poor electric wiringor during renovation works). Also fires can result from earthquakes as was the case during 1995 Great
Hanshin Awaji earthquake in Japan. Considering these issues, the 9th UNESCO Chair International Training
Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage focused on “Protecting living cultural heritage

from disaster risks due to ﬁre”. Policies and planning measures for reducing ﬁre risks to cultural heritage
especially in rapidly urbanizing context of developing countries, special techniques for ﬁre prevention andmitigation, emergency response as well as interventions for long term restoration and rehabilitation ofcultural heritage following disaster were discussed during 2014 course.
ITC 2015

Earthquakes and ﬂoods cause immense damage to cultural heritage. Recently devastating earthquakes
in Nepal in 2015, 2013 earthquake in Philippines, North Italy earthquake of 2012 caused vast damage
to cultural heritage. Moreover 2014 floods in Balkan region, 2011 floods in Thailand and 2010 floods
in Pakistan also caused damage to historic towns and archaeological sites such as Ayutthaya. Whilevulnerability of cultural heritage to earthquake and floods is increasing more than ever before, there
are many examples of traditional knowledge systems developed by communities for mitigating against
earthquakes and ﬂoods. Considering these issues and challenges the 10th International Training Course
focused on the protection of cultural heritage from earthquakes and floods, and other associatedhazards.

19

ITC 2016

Climate change is increasing the frequency of disasters caused by hydro-meteorological events such as
heavy rainfall, ﬂash ﬂoods, cyclones, typhoons and storm surges. As a result, many heritage sites located in
global hot spots such as coastal areas especially below sea level are exposed to risks of inundation greaterthan ever before. Also, there might be low frequency high intensity incidents of ﬂooding that may trigger
landslides along mountain slopes. Moreover, climate change is resulting in higher temperatures are also
resulting increased incidents of wild fires putting cultural heritage located in forested areas to greaterrisk than ever before. The 11th International Training Course specially focused on the protecting cultural
heritage from risks of natural disasters including those induced by climate change.

Organizers and Participants
The training course is organized from the cooperation with the UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOM, ICOMOS/ ICORP,
and relevant institutions of the government of Japan. Since 2017, Independent Administrative Institution
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage has co-organized and supported the training course by providing
the budget and human resources. Participants will include managers of cultural heritage, disaster risk
management experts, decision makers and government oﬃcials involved in cultural properties or disastermanagement.

Participants List of the Previous Training Courses
ITC 2006, the 1st year
No

1

2

3

4

20

Name
Poonacha
KODIRA

Anup KARANTH

Sektiadi

Manggar AYUATICountryWork Position and Aﬃliation

INDIA

Director (Conservation),
Ministry of Tourism andCulture Archaeological Surveyof India

INDIA

Project Coordinator,
Urban Earthquake Vulnerability
Reduction Project, United
Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) India

INDONSESIA

Lecturer,
Dept. of Archaeology, Facultyof Culture Sciences, Gadjah
Mada University

INDONESIA

Supervisor of Rescue
on Preservation Division,
Dept. of Cultural and Tourism,
Center for Preservation ofCultural Heritage of Yogyakarta
Province

DRM Plans of Cultural Heritage
Formulated by the Participants

Qutb Minar and its
Monuments, Delhi, WHS

Prambanan Temple
Compounds, WHS and its
Surrounding Environment

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 12th International Training Course 2017

5

6

7

8

Fauzia QURESHI

Hussain KHADIM

Seok JEONG

Woongju SHINPAKISTAN

Head of the Departmentof Architecture,
National College of Arts, Lahore

PAKISTAN

Coordinator,
Disaster Management Desk
RDPI,
Rural Development Policy
Institute

KOREA

Government employeeof Modern Construction Field,
Tangible Cultural Heritage
Bureau,Cultural Heritage
Administration,
Republic of Korea

KOREA

Rohtas Fort, WHS

Historic Villages of Korea:
Hahoe, WHS in Andong City

Concurrent Professor,
Dept. Interior Architecture,
Chosun College of Science andTechnology

ITC 2007, the 2nd year
Name

CountryWork Position and Aﬃliation

1

A.K.M. Monowar
Hossain
AKHANDBANGLADESH

Deputy Secretary,
Ministry of Home Aﬀairs, GOVT.
of Bangladesh

2

Md. Raﬁqul
ALAM

BANGLADESH

Executive Director,
DWIP UNNAYAN SONGTHA (DUS)

P. R. CHINA

Protection and Management
Bureau of World Cultural
Heritage Site - the Old Town of
Lijiang3

Shijun HE

4

Cuiyu HEP. R. CHINA

Protection and Management
Bureau of World Cultural Heritage
Site - the Old Town of Lijiang

5Maria Del
CarmenCORRALES PEREZPERUInstituto Nacional De Cultura
Architect of the conservation
and Restoration Sub Direction

PERU

Chief of Laboratory of Structures,Japan-Peru Center for
Earthquake Engineering
Research and Disaster Mitigation

6

Partricia Isabel
GIBU YAGUEDRM Plans of Cultural Heritage
Formulated by the Participants

IntroductionNo

Lal Bagh Fort, Dhaka,Bangladesh

Old Town of Lijiang , WHS

Historic Centre of Lima, WHS

21

7

Glen
CONCEPCIONPHILIPPINES

City Disaster Action Oﬃcer andCity Environment & Natural
Resources Oﬃcer,
City Government of Vigan

8

Eric QUADRA

PHILIPPINES

Architect, LGU-Vigan City

Historic Town of Vigan, WHS

ITC 2008, the 3rd year
No

1

22

Name

Choening DORJI

2

Karma TENZIN

3

Mahmoud
NEJATICountry

BHUTANWork Position and Aﬃliation
Architect,
Division for Conservation of
Heritage Sites, Department
of Culture, Ministry of Home
& Cultural Aﬀairs Royal
Government of Bhutan

BHUTAN

Civil Engineer,
Tashichhodzong Maintenance
Division, Dzongkhag
Administration

IRAN

Deputy of Research & TechnicalConsultant,
Recovery Project of Bamʼs
Cultural Heritage

4

Fatemeh
MEHDIZADEHSARADJ

IRAN

Assistant Professor,
Department of Conservation,
Iran University of Science andTechnology

5

Kai Ube Prasad
WEISE

NEPAL

Architect,
Plannersʼ Alliance for the
Himalayan & Allied Regions

6

Suman Narsingh
RAJBHANDARI

NEPALAssistant Professor,
Nepal Engineering College

7

Ivana FILIPOVICSERBIA

Architect Conservationist,
Cultural Heritage Preservation
Institute of Belgrade

8

Shang Chia
CHIOU

TAIWAN

Professor,
Department of Architecture
and Interior Design, National
Yunlin University of Science &Technology

9Shen Wen CHIENTAIWAN

Associate Professor,
Department of Fire Science,Central Police University

DRM Plans of Cultural Heritage
Formulated by the Participants

Tashichho Dzong

Bam and its CulturalLandscape, WHS

Patan Durbar Square
Monument Zone in
Kathmandu Valley, WHS

Lower Town in Belgrade
Fortress

Fort San Domingo in Tamsui
and Surround Historical
Buildings

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 12th International Training Course 2017

ITC 2009, the 4th year
No

1

2

Name

Country

Rong YU

Yuan DINGDRM Plans of Cultural Heritage
Formulated by the Participants

Work Position and Aﬃliation

P. R. CHINA

Lecturer, Wenhua College,
Huazhong University of
Science and Technology

P.R.CHINA

Researcher,
Tongji University, National
Historic Cities Research Center

NEPAL

Architect,World Heritage Conservation
Section/Ministry of Culture
and State Restructuring,
Department of Archaeology

Ramesh
THAPALIYA

4

Suresh Suras
SHRESTHA

NEPAL

Archaeological Oﬃcer,
Ministry of Culture and state
Restructuring, Department ofArchaeology

5Pauline BROWNJAMAICA

Senior Director,
Oﬃce of Disaster Preparedness
and Emergency Management

JAMAICA

Senior Archaeologist,
Jamaica National Heritage
Trust

6

Audene BROOKS

7

Sergius
CIOCANU

MOLDOVA

Head Scientiﬁc Researcher,
Institute of Cultural Heritageof the Academy of Science ofMoldova

8

Valeria
SURUCEANU

MOLDOVA

Curator,National art Museum ofMoldova

Patan Durbar Square
Monument Zone in Kathmandu
Valley, WHS

Port Royal City

Introduction

3

Dujiangyan, WHS

National Museum of Fine Arts
(Buildings and Collection)

Observers in the Kathmandu Part of the ITC 2009
Name

No

CountryWork Position and Aﬃliation1

Keshab P. SHRESTHA

NEPAL

Chief,
National History Museum

2

Punya Sagar MARAHATTA

NEPALLecturer,
IoE, tribhuvan University

3

Ajay LAL CHANDRA

NEPAL

Assistant Professor,
Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, IoE

4

Gyanin RAI

NEPAL

Chief (Administration, Information &Public Relation Section),
Lumbini Development Trust23

5

Inu PRADHAN SALIKE

NEPAL

Lecturer,
Khwopa Engineering College

6

Saubhagya PRADHNANGANEPALHead of Culture and Archaeology Unit,
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City Oﬃce

7

Chandra Shova SHAKYANEPALHead of Heritage Section,
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City Oﬃce

8

Prabin SHRESTHANEPALHead of Urban Development Division,
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City Oﬃce

9

Ashok SHRESTHANEPALHead of Administration Division,
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City Oﬃce

10

Sainik Raj SINGHNEPALHead of Earthquake Safety Section,
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City Oﬃce

ITC 2010, the 5th year
No

1

2

3

24

Name

DechenTSHERING

Junko MUKAI

Alexander G
DWIGHT

CountryWork Position and Aﬃliation

BHUTAN

Structural Engineer,
Division for Conservation of
Heritage Sites, Department ofCulture, Ministry of Home &Cultural Aﬀairs, Royal Governmentof Bhutan

BHUTAN

Deputy Chief Conservation
Architect,
Division for Conservation of
Heritage Sites, Department ofCulture, Ministry of Home andCultural Aﬀairs, Royal Governmentof Bhutan

PALAU

Director, Historical
Preservation Oﬃcer,
Bureau of Arts & Culture,
Ministry of Community &Cultural Aﬀairs

4

Sunny
NGIRMANG

PALAU

Palau National Registrar,
Bureau of Arts & Culture,
Palau Historic Preservation
Oﬃce

5

TeresaVILCAPOMAHUAPAYAPERU

Professor, Sagrado Corazon
University

6

Olga Keiko
MENDOZASHIMADAPERUJSPS Research Fellow,
Graduate School of Science& Engineering, Ritsumeikan
University

7

Marilene
TERRONES DIAZ

PERU

Professor, Sagrado Corazon
University

DRM Plans of Cultural Heritage
Formulated by the Participants

Wangduephodrang Dzong

Bai: Traditional Meeting House

City of Cuzco, WHS

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 12th International Training Course 20178

MilicaGROZDANIC

9

Svetlana
Dimitrijevic
MARKOVIC

10

Zeynep
GUL UNAL

11

MeltemVATAN KAPTANSERBIA

Director,
Cultural Heritage Preservation
Institute of Belgrade

SERBIA

Architect - Conservator Senior Associate,
Cultural Heritage Preservation
Institute of Belgrade

TURKEY

Assistant Professor, Dr.
Yildiz Technical University,
Faculty of Architecture,
Restoration Department

TURKEY

Research Assistant, PhD
Student,
Yildiz Technical University,
Faculty of Architecture,
Structural Systems Division

Kosancicev Venac, Belgrade

Eskigediz Heritage Site

ITC 2011, the 6th year
DRM Plans of Cultural Heritage
Formulated by the Participants

COLOMBIA

Assessor for the Heritage
Director Oﬃce,
Ministry of Culture

History center of Santa Cruz deMompox, WHS

Cheryl NICHOLSJAMAICA

Training Manager,
Oﬃce of Disaster Preparedness
and Emergency Management

The Holy Trinity Cathedral

3

Jose Ramon
PEREZ OCEJOMEXICO

Part-time Teacher,
Universidad de las Américas(Puebla, MEXICO)Colonial City Centre of Puebla,
WHS

4

Julius
MWAHUNGA

KENYA

Senior Cultural Oﬃcer,
Ministry of State for National
Heritage and Culture,
Department of Culture

Lamu Old Town, WHS

5

Remigius
KIGONGOUGANDA

Conservator Sites andMonuments/ Site Manager,
Department of Museums andMonuments

Kasubi Tombs, WHS

Taj Mahal, WHS

Historic Mosque City ofBagerhat, WHS

Country

1

Celina RINCON

2

6

Janhwij SHARMA

INDIA

Director (Conservation andWorld Heritage),
Archaeological Survey of India,
Ministry of Culture

7

Md. Aamir
Hussain SHIKDERBANGLADESH

Urban Local Body Coordinator,
Bangladesh Municipal
Development Fund (BMDF)

Introduction

Work Position and Aﬃliation

Name

No

25

8

9

Qing WEI

Yu WANG

P. R. CHINA

Deputy Director,
Cultural Heritage Conservation
Center, THAD

Kulangsu

P. R. CHINAPhD Candidate,
Urban Design and Planning
Department, Norwegian
University of Science andTechnology (NTNU)

Taoping Qiang Village

Work Position and Aﬃliation

DRM Plans of Cultural Heritage
Formulated by the Participants

FIJI

Secretary General,
ICOMOS PASIFIKA

Levuka Town, WHS

INDIA

Sector Manager,
Gujarat State Disaster
Management Authority

Champaner - Pavagadh
Archaeological Park,
Panchamahal District, Gujarat,
WHS

Jongmyo Shrine, WHS

ITC 2012, the 7th year
No

Name

1

Suzie YEE SHOW

2

26

Vikas LAKHANICountry3

Sang sun JO

KOREA

Research Associate andCurator,Heritage Repair Division,
Cultural Heritage
Administration of KOREA

4

Rosli
BIN HAJI NOR

MALAYSIA

Head of Melaka World HeritageOﬃce,
Melaka World Heritage Oﬃce

Historic City of Melaka, WHS

Bagan located in Manadalay
Division, Myanmar

5

Ni LEI WIN

MYANMAR

Communications Oﬃcer at
World Concern Myanmar,
Relief, Recovery andDevelopment Project inMyanma6

Helen
McCRACKENNEWZEALAND

Policy Adviser - Heritage,
Ministry for Culture andHeritage

Cuba Street Historic Area,
Wellington

7

Usman SHAMIMPAKISTAN

Programme Oﬃcer,
Kuchlak Welfare Society (KWS)

Mehrgarh, lies on the "Kachi
plain" of now Balochistan,
Pakistan

8

PoornaYAHAMPATHSRI LANKA

Consultant- External Resource Person,
Disaster Risk Management &Climate Change for GIZ

Sacred City of Kandy,
Sri Lanka, WHS

9

Sibel
YILDIRIM ESEN

TURKEYConservation Architect,
Ministry of Culture andTourism

Agora Archeological Sitein the Historic City of Izmir

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 12th International Training Course 2017

ObserversNo

NameCountryWork Position and Aﬃliation

1

Dong Seok KANG

KOREA

A Section Chief of GIS, Cultural Heritage Administration

2

Thi My Thi TONGVIET NAM

PhD Student, International Environmental and Disaster
Management Laboratory, Graduate School of Global
Environmental Studies, Kyoto University

ITC 2013, the 8th year
No

Name

1

Saleh
MohammadSAMIT

2Dian LAKSHMIPRATIWIDRM Plans of Cultural Heritage
Formulated by the Participants

AFGHANISTANNational Manager,
Community Development
Programme, Aga Khan
Foundation- Afghanistan

Cultural Landscape andArchaeological Remains of the
Bamiyan Valley, WHS

INDONESIAHead of Archaeological
Section,Division of History,
Archaeological and Museum,
Cultural Service Oﬃce,
Government of Yogyakarta
Special Territory

Kotagede Heritage Area,
Yogyakarta Historic City

Golestan Palace, Tehran
Bazaar and their surrounding
old urban fabrics, Tehran

3

Kambod AMINIHOSSEINI

IRAN

Director,
Risk Management ResearchCenter(Associate Professor)
Risk Management ResearchCenter,International Institute ofEarthquake Engineering andSeismology

4

BarbaraCARANZAITALY

MEC srl
Italian Army “LIGURIA” ARMYMILITARY COMMAND

Monumental Cemetery of
Staglieno, Genoa
Portovenere, Cinque Terre,
and the lslands (Palmaria,Tino
and Tinetto), WHS
Laamu atoll Isdhoo Old Friday
mosque in Maldives

5

Paola MUSSINIITALY

Researcher,
SiTI-Instituto Superioresui Sistemi Territoriali perlʼInnovazione

6

Zaha AHMED

MALDIVES

Assistant Architect,
Heritage Department,
Male' Republic of Maldives

Introduction

Work Position and Aﬃliation

Country27

7

Arjun KOIRALA

8

Kenechukwu
Chudi
ONUKWUBE

9

MuhammadJuma
MUHAMMAD

10

Hatthaya

SIRIPHATTHANAKUN

NEPALAdvisor,
Urban Planning andInfrastructure Development,
GFA Consulting Group (Nepal
Oﬃce), on behalf of GIZ/Nepal
Municipal Support
Team, Ministry of Urban
Development, Department
of Urban Development andBuilding Construction

The city core area of Tansen
Municipality

NIGERIA

Director of Programs,
Development Education and
Advocacy
Resources Initiative for Africa(DEAR Africa)

Sukur Cultural Landscape,
WHS

TANZANIA

Director,
Urban and Rural Planning
Department of Urban and
Rural Planning

Stone Town of Zanzibar, WHS

THAILAND

Landscape Architect
Ministry of Culture, Fine Arts
Department,Oﬃce of Architecture

Historic City of Ayutthaya,
WHSCountryWork Position and Aﬃliation

DRM Plans of Cultural Heritage
Formulated by the Participants

ITC 2014, the 9th yearNo

1

Elena MAMANIALBANIA

Project Manager, Deputy Headof Oﬃce, Cultural Heritage
without Borders (CHwB)

Gjirokastra, WHS

2Catherine
FORBES

AUSTRALIA

Built Heritage Advisor, GML
Heritage; Australia Institute ofArchitects, Australia ICOMOS

The Rocks Historic Urban
Precinct3

Sasa TKALEC

CROATIA

Head of Oﬃce of Director,
Croatian Conservation
Institute

Castle Batthany in Ludbreg

4

Juan Diego
BADILLO REYESECUADOR

Architect Conservator
freelance, Volunteer SouthAmerica Coordinator

San Antonio del Cerro Rico deZarumaEGYPT

Chairman, Conservator in
the Ministry of Antiquities,
Egyptian Heritage Rescue
Foundation (EHRF); Training& Capacity Building UnitManager, Egyptian Earth
Construction Association(EECA)Bab El-Wazir, El-Darb Al-Ahmar
District, Historic Cairo, WHS

5

28

Name

Abdelhamid
SAYED1.1 Background and Objectives of the 12th International Training Course 2017

THE FIJI
ISLANDS

Senior Project Oﬃcer Levuka,
Department of National
Heritage, Culture and Arts

Historical Port Town of Levuka,
WHS

HONDURAS

Urban control andplaniﬁcation unit, Alcaldia
Municipal Del Distrito Central(Gerencia Del Centro Historico)Central District Historic Area

8

Jyoti PANDEYSHARMA

INDIA

Professor, Department ofArchitecture, Deenbandhu
Chhotu Ram University of
Science & Technology

Fatehpur Sikri, Agra District,
Uttar Pradesh, WHS

9Saut SAGALAINDONESIA

Senior Fellow, Resilience
Development Initiative

Gedung Sate Building,Governor oﬃce of West Java
Province
Al-Hadba Minaret and Nirgal
Gate / Mosul City

6

Anaseini
KALOUGATA

7

Cinthia
CABALLERO

Alaa HAMDON

IRAQ

11

Richard NESTERNEWZEALAND

Technical Advisor ‒ Historic,
Department of Conservation

Government Buildings Historic
Reserve

PAKISTAN

Regional Emergency
Oﬃcer (South Punjab),
Punjab Emergency Service(rescue1122), Emergency
Services Academy

Lahore Fort, WHSSYRIAHead of the scientiﬁc researchcommissions department,
Higher Commission for
Scientiﬁc Research

Crac des Chevaliers(in Arabic: Castle Alhsn), WHS

THAILAND

Captain assistant, Klongtoey
ﬁre station, second operation,ﬁre department, Bangkok
metropolitan

Vimanmek Palace, WHS

CountryWork Position and Aﬃliation

DRM Plans of Cultural Heritage
Formulated by the Participants

CHILE

Assistant professor,
Departamento de Arquitectura,
Universidad Técnica Federico
Santa María

Historic Centre of Valparaíso

GHANA

Assistant Conservator ofMonuments,
Ghana Museums andMonuments Board

Asante Traditional Buildings

12

13

14

Zafar SHAH

Hussain SALEH

Kaichard
RUTTANAWONGCHAIIntroduction

10

University Lecturer, Researcher
and Earthquake Expert,
Remote Sensing Center, Mosul
University

ITC 2015, the 10th year
No

Name

1

Marcela
HURTADOSALDIAS

2

Benjamin Koﬁ
AFAGBEGEE

29

3

Stephan DONA

HAITI

Disaster Risk Reduction
Advisor,Plan Consult

Citadelle, Sans Souci, Ramiers

4

Mohamad Faruk
MUSTHAFA

INDIA

Chief Executive Oﬃcer,
RAPID RESPONSE

Mahabalipuram

IRAN

Teaching/research assistant in
Department of Environmental
Planning,
Ph.D. Candidate inInternational Graduate School:
Heritage Studies,
Brandenburg University ofTechnology Cottbus

Bam and its Cultural landscapeArchaeological Area ofAgrigento

530

Mohammad
RAVANKHAH

6

Aurelio DUGONIITALYRegional Director of ANPAS
Sicily Committee,
National Association for Public
Assistance (ANPAS)

7

HisilaMANANDHAR

NEPAL

Urban planner,
Kathmandu Valley
Development Authority

Patan Durbar Square

8

Sonam LAMA

NEPAL

Assistant professor, Nepal
Enginnering College

Boudhanath Stupa andsurrounding area

9

Ilse Anne
Elisabeth
DE VENTNETHERLANDS

Senior inspector, GeoEngineering,the Dutch State Supervision of
Mines

Hogeland, Groningen,the Netherlands

PALESTINE

Senior Project Architect & Fast
Track Coordinator,
Welfare Association ‒ Old Cityof Jerusalem Revitalization
Program “OCJRP”

Old City of Jerusalem

The Sto. Niño Shrine andHeritage Museum,and the Peopleʼs Center andLibrary

10

Bashar Ibrahim
HUSSEINI

11

Gerald Vallo
PARAGAS

PHILIPPINES

Urban and Environmental
Planner (Licensed),
City Government of Tacloban

12

Marko ALEKSIĆSERBIA

Associate,
Central Institute forConservation in Belgrade

Serbian Orthodox Monastery
Žiča

13

Pamela Jane
MAC QUILKAN

SOUTH
AFRICA

Programme Oﬃcer,
The African World Heritage
Fund (AWHF)

Robben Island

14

WitiyaPITTUNGNAPOOTHAILAND

Lecturer,
Faculty of Architecture,
Naresuan University

Ban Pak Klong Village,
Bangrakham,
Phitsanulok Province, Thailand

15

Ngoc Phu PHAM

VIETNAM

Vice Director, Hoi An center for
Cultural Heritage Management
and Conservation

Hoi An Ancient Town, Vietnam

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 12th International Training Course 2017

ITC 2016, the 11th year
No

1

2

3

Name

Maria Cristina
Vereza LODI

Fatma Saidi
TWAHIR

Muhammad Fathi
Hasan AL-ABSIDRM Plans of Cultural Heritage
Formulated by the Participants

BRAZIL

Architect Preservationist,
Rio de Janeiro Municipal
Government / Rio World
Heritage Institute

Carioca Landscapes Between
the Mountain and the Sea

KENYA

Architect,Sites and Monuments;& Mombasa Old Town
Conservation Oﬃce,
National Museums of Kenya

Mombasa Old Town
Conservation Area

JORDAN

Associate conservator
Architect,Engineering and conservation
department/ Department of
Antiquities (DOA)

Petra or Karak castle

Zona Arqueológica de El Tajín,
Veracruz (Tajín Archaeological
Site)

4

Dulce MariaGRIMALDI SIERRAMEXICO

Senior conservator forconservation and researchof decorative elements at
archaeological sites,
Coordinación Nacional deConservación del Patrimonio
Cultural (CNCPC),
Instituto Nacional deAntropología e Historia (INAH)

5

Barbara MINGUEZGARCIASPAIN

Consultant,
The World Bank

Antigua Guatemala

6

Vanessa Anne
TANNERNEWZEALAND

Senior Heritage Advisor,
Wellington City Council,

Newtown Shopping Centre
Heritage Area

Associate for archaeology,
Commission to Preserve
National Monuments of Bosnia
and Herzegovina

Old Bridge Area of the Old Cityof Mostar(Part of ) Delta Dunarii,
Romania ‒ Tulcea city andsurroundings proximity

BOSNIA AND

7

Nermina KATKIĆ

8

MihaelaHĂRMĂNESCUROMANIA

Lecturer, PhD Architect,ʻIon Mincuʼ University ofArchitecture and Urbanism,
Faculty of Urbanism

9

Alberto Enrique
PASCUAL

PANAMA

Director,
Fundation CoMunidad

Fortiﬁcations on the Caribbean
Side of Panama: Portobelo ‒San Lorenzo

10

Sherwynne
Bagaoisan AGUB

PHILIPPINES

Legislative Staﬀ Oﬃcer IV,
Senate Economic Planningand Policy Oﬃce,
Senate of the Philippines

Historic Town of Vigan

HERZEGOVINAIntroduction

Work Position and Aﬃliation

Country

31

32

11

Mohamed ROUAI

MOROCCO

Professor ‒ researcher,
Earth Sciences Department,
Faculty of Sciences,
University Moulay Ismail,Meknes, Morocco.

12Navneet YADAVINDIAAssociate Director,
Disaster Risk Management

Shimla City, Himachal Pradesh

13

Claudia CeciliaGONZÁLEZMUZZIO

CHILE

Partner at Ambito Consultores,
Ambito Consultores Ltda.

Qhapaq Ñan, Andean Road
SystemPAKISTAN

Assistant Director -Recovery &Rehabilitation,
National Disaster Management
Authority,

Mohenjo-Daro archeological
sites

PERU

Senior Auditor ‒ Specialistin Culture Management andCultural Heritage,
Contraloria General de la
Republica

Chan ‒ Chan Archaeological
Zone. (La Libertad, northerncoast of Peru).

14

Amna SHUJA

15Maria ElenaALMESTARURTEAGA

Volubilis Archaeological Site
(Morocco)

1.2 Timetable of International Training Course (ITC) on Disaster Risk Management

THEME

8/27
Sun

8/28
Mon

8/29
Tue

8/30
Wed

8/31
Thu

9/1
Fri

9/2
Sat

9/3
Sun

9/4
Mon

9/5
Tue

9/6
Wed

ArrivalIntroduction
and Participants`
Presentation

Core Principles
and Value
Assessment

Risk Analysis at Site
and Museum Level,
and Key Terminology

Case Study ProjectWork

Urban Disaster Risk
Reduction andIntegrated Risk
Assessment

Prevention and
Mitigation
Techniques

Disaster Imagination
Game

Risk Prevention,
Mitigation andEmergency
Preparedness

Emergency Response

Coping Method f
Movable Heritag
andMiddle Presentati

DMUCH

DMUCH

Kiyomizu-District

DMUCH

DMUCH

DMUCH

Ponto-choMuseum andTofuku-ji

Kyoto Museum

DMUCH

Recap

Recap

Recap

Lecture 20
Introduction of First
Aid(A. TANDON)

Recap

Venue
9:00

Recap

10:00

Registration

Lecture 2

Opening Address

Disaster Risk
Management of Cultural
Heritage - Significanceand Core Principles

Orientationof the Course(R.JIGYASU)(R.JIGYASU)

to Kiyomizu-Dera

Lecture 6
Introduction to theContext of Japanese
Wooden Cultural
Heritage(A.KOMIYA,
Kyoto Pref.)Case Study ProjectWork

Lecture 7
Landslide

11:00

Assessment
Lecture 3(M. FUJIMOTO)
Assessing the Values
Site Visit 1-1
Lecture 1
of Cultural Heritage
Observations of Risks
The Need for Disaster(R.JIGYASU)
Risk Management for
Cultural Heritage inHistoric Cities: The
Case of Kyoto

12:00

Lunch

(K.TOKI)at Kiyomizu-Dera
World Heritage Site
(A.KOMIYA, Kyoto
Pref.)

Self Study

Lecture 8
Lecture 16
Multiple Hazards andLecture 11
Disaster Imagination
Urban Areas : Urban Quantifying DisasterGame andEnvironmental Water
Risk to Culturalplanning and DRM, or
Supply System in
Heritage Assets
Urban planning for
Kiyomizu Area
(R. GUNASEKERA)
DRM?
(T.OKUBO)(K.CHMUTINA)

Lunch

Lunch

Lecture 17-2
Introductory Case
Studies of Japanese
Cultural Properties(Y SUZUKI, Kyoto
Museum)Lunch
Site Visit 4-2
Exhibition Rooms of
Kyoto National
MuseumField Investigation for WS
2

Workshop 1
Assessing the Values(R.JIGYASU)

Lecture 21

Lunch
Workshop 3
Applying Integrated
Risk Management
Process(K.CHMUTINA)

14:00
to Sannei-zaka

15:00

The First
Presentations andDiscussion
by the Training
Participants/
Cultural Heritage andDisaster

16:00

Lecture 5
The Value of Movable
Heritage in the
Historical Context of
Built Heritage(T. MIYAKAWA, Kyoto
National Museum)

17:00

Case Study Project
Work

18:00

Site Visit 2
and Field Work
Sannei-Zaka
ImportantPreservation District(T.OKUBO)

Lecture 10
Introduction to theIntegrated
Methodology for
Assessing Risks(R.JIGYASU)

to DMUCH

Workshop 2
Impact of Disaster on
Cultural Heritage/in Case of KiyomizuDera Temple,
Introduction to Key
Terminology on
Disasters(R.JIGYASU)

Case Study ProjectWork

Case Study ProjectWork

Site Visit 3
Lecture 13
and Field Work
Climate Change andPonto-cho Townscape
Risk Prevention
Improvement Area
(Y.SATOFUKA)(T.OKUBO and D.KIM)

34

Case Study Proje
Work

Lunch

Case Study ProjeWork

to DMUCH
Exercise andWorkshop/
Lecture 14
Simulation
Lecture 19-1, 2
Flood Prevention andEmergency
Disaster Prevention for
Mitigation
Cultural Heritage in
Preparedness
andTechniques
Kyoto
Response: First Aid to(K.SAWAI)(K. MEKATA and A.
Cultural Heritage
NATANI, Kyoto City FD)"Salvage"(A. TANDON andWorkshop 5
Lecture 19-3,
C. WEGENER)
Risk Assessment andSite Visit 5
Lecture 15
Scenarios Exercise:Fire Prevention
GIS for Disaster
Discussion andManagement
Facilities at Tofuku-ji
Presentation on(K.HANAOKA)(N. TSURUOKA, Kyoto
Disaster Imagination
Pref.)
Game (DIG)
Workshop 4(T.OKUBO and D.KIM)
GIS for Disasterto DMUCH
to DMUCH

The Middle
Presentations
by the Training
Participants

Management ofHistorical Cities andCultural Heritage(K.HANAOKA)

Case Study ProjectWork

Case Study Project
Work

Kyoto

Kyoto

Discussion andCase Study ProjectWork

Case Study Proje
Work

Welcome Dinner

19:00

Accommodation

Lecture 22
Blue Shield andHague Conventio(C. WEGENER)

Lecture 18-2 andWorkshop 6
Vulnerability and
Risk Assessment
Exercise(A. TANDON and
C. WEGENER)
to Tofuku-ji

Lecture 4
Introduction to theContext of Historic
City of Kyoto(N.ITAYA)

Rescue, Conservat
and Preparedness
Movable Heritag(Y. KOHDZUMA, Na
NRICP)

Lunch

Landslide Damaged Area
(M. FUJIMOTO)

13:00

Site Visit 4-1
Kyoto National
MuseumExercise andWorkshop/Simulation
Emergency
to Ponto-cho
Preparedness andResponse: First Aid to
Lecture 18-1
Cultural Heritage
Lecture 9
Developing DRM Plans for "Situation Analysis,
Lecture 12
Disaster Risk Reduction
Museums
Site damage and Risk
Landslide Prevention
and Integrated Risk
(C. WEGENER)
Site Visit 3 and Field
Assessment, andManagement of Historicand Mitigation
Lunch
Work
Debrief and Prepare"
Cities: Who isTechniques
Ponto-cho Townscape(A. TANDON and
Responsible?
Improvement Area
(R.FUKAGAWA)
C. WEGENER)(K.CHMUTINA)(T.OKUBO and D.KIM)

Site Visit 1-2

Lunch

Lecture 17-1
DRM system in Kyoto
National Museum(J. FURIHATA)

Kyoto

Kyoto

Kyoto

Kyoto

Kyoto

Kyoto

Kyoto

Kyoto

Kyoto

of Cultural Heritage 2017, 12th year, Ritsumeikan University

9/7
Thu

d for
age

Post Disaster
Recovery on CulturalLandscapeation
KumanoAt 7:30
to Kumanoation
ss for
age
Nara

9/9
Sat

9/10
Sun

Visit to World
Heritage Areas
Affected by Typhoon

Planning for
Recovery: Lessons
from Kobe

Case Study Project
Work

Kumano

Kobe

Kyoto

Lecture 24
Disaster Mitigation
and AwarenessRaising for Tourists(Y. ISHIDA)

to Nachi-Shrine

9/11
Mon

Site Visit 6-1

DMUCH

DMUCH

DMUCH

Recap

Recap

Recap

Recap

Lecture 32

Lecture 37
Cultural Heritage: A(M. FUJIMOTO andY. ISHIDA)

Lecture 27
Thinking About
Disaster Through a
Social Science Lens
(W.CHEEK)

Lecture 25
Planning for Disaster
Mitigation of Cultural
Heritage Training of
Heritage Manager(Y.MURAKAMI, Hyogo
Pref.)

Self study

9/14
Thu

9/15
Fri

Lunch

DMUCH

9/16
Sat

International
Symposium

THEME

Kinugasa Campus
Soshi-kan

Venue
9:00

Dynamic Analysis of
Review of Grants andEarthquakes and Seismic
Partnerships
Performance of JapaneseWorkshop andDiscussion 7-2
Group Work for
Designing the
Recovery Process(W.CHEEK, L.BOSHER,
Y.HIRAOKA,
N. ITAYA and
G.TANIBATA)

Lunch

Historical Structures(S.YOSHITOMI)(E. KIRBY,
Smithsonian
Institution)

10:00

Preparation for theLast Presentation

11:00

Lecture 38
Governmental Policies ofDisaster Risk
Engaging Community
Management for Culturalfor Disaster Risk
Properties under the
Reduction
Legislative Protection in(S. RAJIB)
Japan(S. TANAKA, ACA Japan)

Lecture 33

Lunch

Lunch

12:00

Lunch

Introduction

Post Disaster
Recovery from
Typhoon and Land
Slide: Yokogaki-Ridge

Site Visit 6-2
Post Disaster
Recovery of from
Typhoon and Land
Slide:
Nachi-Shrine

9/13
Wed

DMUCH

Lecture 26
Principle for
Sustainable Recovery
of Cultural Heritage(R. RANJITKAR)

Exhibition of Disaster
Reduction and
Human Renovation
Institution

9/12
Tue

International
From Response to
Recovery of Cultural Frameworks for DRM National Policies and
The Last Presentation
Recovery: Great East
Practices
Heritageand Site Management
Japan Disaster
Systems

Case Study Project
Work

nd
tion
R)

ject

9/8
Fri

Lunch at JICA

(M. FUJIMOTO andY. ISHIDA)

Lunch

Introduction of Program

Workshop 7-1
Group Work for
Designing the
Recovery Process(W.CHEEK)Lunch

To KobeLecture 34
Lecture 30
Lessons from Post- The Roll of Intangible
Disaster Responses Cultural Heritage on
and Recovery in
DRM
Nepal and Myanmar (H. KUBOTA, Tokyo(K. WEISE)
NRICP)

13:00

14:00

ject

e
ns
ng
s

To WSRE InstituteLecture 28
Post Disaster andRecovery Process by theGovernment andCommunity in Case of
Minami Sanriku Cho(Y.HIRAOKA)

Site Visit 7
After the Kobe
Earthquake Site

Lecture 23
2011 Typhoon andLandslide on Kii Area,
Nachi-shrine andHistorical Disaster ofKumanohongushirine(M. FUJIMOTO)

Lecture 31
PDNA and Post
Disaster Recovery
Frame Work
(E. SELTER, UNESCO
and K. WEISE)

Lecture 35

International
Symposium

Recent Development andEmergency Response to
Cultural Heritage in Crisis
Situations(E. SELTER,
G.BOCCARDI, UNESCO)

Case Study Project
Work

15:00

The Last Presentation

16:00

Lecture 29
Lessons from Post
Disaster Recovery of
Intangible Heritage(G.TANIBATA and
N.ITAYA)

Lecture 36
Management Systems
and Management
Planning for Heritage
Sites(J.KING, ICCROM)

17:00

Case Study ProjectWork

Case Study ProjectWork

Case Study ProjectWork

To Kyoto

18:00

ject

Farewell Party
19:00

Kumano

Kobe

Kyoto

Kyoto

Kyoto

Kyoto

Kyoto

Kyoto

Kyoto

Kyoto

Co-organized by Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan andIndependent Administrative Institution National Institutes for Cultural Heritage
In Cooperation with UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOM and ICOMOS/ICORP

35

2 Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans
for Case Study Projects
by ITC 2017 Participants2.1 Ta Dzong National Museum of Bhutan, Paro

Dorji Wangchuk
Conservator, National Museum of Bhutan, Bhutan

1. Introduction of Ta Dzong National Museum

Fig.1 Photo of Ta Dzong

Fig.2 The location of Ta Dzong<Vision of the National Museum>

Preservation and promotion of extent art andartifacts through research, symposium andexhibition<Mission statement of the National Museum>

1. To act as the main stakeholder for preservationand promotion of Bhutanʼs cultural heritage
2. To acquire arts and artifacts for interpretation ofhistory and culture through exhibition for posterity
3. Research and documentation of art objects tostudy our history and educate future generation
4. Educate and disseminate information on history
and culture through exhibition within and outside
the country
5. Conduct symposium and seminars on tangible
and intangible culture by inviting researchers andscholarsFig.3 Map for location of Paro38

2.1 Ta Dzong National Museum of Bhutan, Paro

< Attributes of the National Museum of Bhutan>
Attributes of yoursite/museum andtheir location

Type of attribute(movable/immovable,
tangible/intangible,
natural/cultural/mixed)

Associated Values(in bullets

Stake holders
these values

Scores foreach Value
1 (Low)
2 (Medium)
3 (High)1

Tshogzhing
Lhakhang (Templeof four schools of
Buddhism)

Immovable/Movable
Tangible/Intangible
Cultural・Spiritual value
・Artistic value
・Historical value

・Bhutanese・Locals
・Buddhism
practitioners
・Visitors

3
3
3
2

2

Namse Lhakhang(Temple of Kubera)
Lord of Wealth)Immovable/Movable
Tangible/Intangible
Cultural・Spiritual value
・Artistic value
・Historical value

・Bhutanese・Locals
・Buddhism
practitioners
・Visitors

3
3
3
2

3

Fourth ﬂoor
(Mandala ofZhithro Lhatshog)

Immovable

・Spiritual vale・Intangible cultural
value
・Artistic value

・Buddhist/
Bhutanese
・Visitors
・Scholars

333< Evaluation of Existing Site Management>

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

S.
No.

Although a legislation for the protection ofsuch heritage site is still under deliberationof the legislative arm of the government,these national heritage sites are accordedhigh priority of the relevant agencies andprotected and preserved, and if need thearises. These heritage sites (structure) are
renovated by synchronizing the old age
tradition with modern structural amenities
together as to preserve the authenticity of theFig.4 Key attributes 1 Tshogzhing Lhakhang 6th Floorbuilding, and at the same time to strengthen
to prevent further risk and hazards.

Headed by a director, the museum is supported and run by a team of 29 staff comprising ofadministrative, curatorial, conservation, and support staﬀ.
< Existing management systems for disasters at Ta Dzong>1.

Better storage facility with modern amenities

2.

Improved show cases with lighting control, and integrated pest management

3.

Coordinated ﬂow of visitors with signage and emergency exit incorporated n the 2nd ﬂoor of the
Ta Dzong

4.

Improved drainage systems around the Ta Dzong

5.

Fire alarm detectors installed

6.

Installed ﬁre hydrant and constructed a water reservoir with the capacity of 15000 litres

7.

Acquired ﬁre extinguishers of appropriate usages and installed them at strategic locations in andaround the museum

39

8.

Training of museum staﬀ in ﬁre ﬁghting with collaboration of Fire Fighting Unit of the Royal
Bhutan Police, Paro Division

9.

Installed PA system in the museum

10.

Medical kit with emergency ﬁre and medical personnelʼs telephone numbers

11.

Emergency evacuation plan incorporated during the renovation

12.

Installation of CCTV

13.

Power back (Diesel generator installed)

2. Risk Analysis of Ta Dzong< Past history of disasters>

September 2011 at 6.40PM caused extensive damage to the 368 years old Ta-Dzong building whichhouses the National Museum. The six stories building was damaged in the following areas:
Outer portion
The tremor dislodged the stone walls of the building in two places on the left side of the entrance to themuseum. As is evident from the pictures, the windows of the same portion got tilted, displaced and evena slight tremor can bring down the window structure at any time. The portion above the Namse Lhakhangfacing the palace also got dislodged and falling stones fell on the roof of the third floor and adjoin
reference library. This damage had caused the roof to leak, and requires immediate attention. Due to theimpact of the tremor dislodging the stone walls, the main door and itʼs adjoin portions are also damaged.
These are evident from the inability to open the main entrance door fully and huge stone slabs cracked atvarious places. (Please refer pictures).
The previous bulge caused by the tremor of 2003 also has bulged furthermore and the cracks havewidened further.
Inner portion.
The tremor also caused the main structure of Tshogshing to tilt and in the process many clay statues felloﬀ broke to pieces. Our preliminary inspection of the TsogshingLhakhang, we estimated that around 7
clay statues were damaged due to the impact of the tremor.
On the closer scrutiny of the 5th ﬂoor gallery from the inner side, it was noticed that window structures
were tilting toward outside and inner side. The stair leading to the ﬁfth ﬂoor also got shifted.
The cracks in the 3rd ﬂoor which appeared after the tremor of 2003 also got widened markedly. There isevidence of shaking in the 2nd ﬂoor and the ground ﬂoor too. Many exhibits have also fallen althoughdamage is minimal at this moment, with the exception of the statues in the TshogshingLhakhang. The
windows on the 3rd ﬂoor have also tilted excessively causing great concern of the safety of the museum.
< Slow and catastrophic hazards>

Since the Ta Dzong is situated on a hillock overlooking the Rinpung (Paro) Dzong and the Paro valley,
it is prone to landslide which may be triggered by an earthquake in the coming years. This may leadto the total collapse of the Ta Dzong destroying many cultural heritage objects along with it. Fire isanother imminent threat to the Ta Dzong from the adjoin village and from within the museum campus.
Anticipating such disaster, we shifted the temporary huts housing the security guards to a distance from40

2.1 Ta Dzong National Museum of Bhutan, Parothe museum and we plan to shift the conservation laboratory as well from the close proximity of the Ta
Dzong. Vegetation is another issue near the Ta Dzong, fortunately, these plants are just shrubs (ﬂowering
plants) and do not pose real threat to the heritage site. As for the cultural heritage objects housed in themuseum, deterioration is a slow but inevitable process, which cannot be stopped altogether and suchprocess is going to continue into posterity.
< List of threats and hazards>
1.

Land slide risk due to the sloppy location

2.

Vulnerable to ﬁre from the adjoining hamlet as they use ﬁre wood for heating their homes in
winterRisk of ﬁre since the structural is of wooden

4.

Risk of ﬁre from lighting of butter lamps and burning incense

5.

Bio-deterioration (decaying of wooden parts) due to excessive humidity

6.

Slow and steady deterioration of both ethnographical and contemporary objects in the museum

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

3.

owing various deteriorating agencies< Risk analysis of the museum and its collection>

Many of the traditional vernacular buildings in Bhutan are constructed from the locally available materials
such as wood, stone and mud, and one cannot find any traces of nails or iron used in these houses orbuildings. One of the salient features of traditional construction methodologies applied by our forefathers
using what is available locally.
#

Category of collection/
Structure

Vulnerability

Risk

1

Ta Dzong (Building)Fire/earthquake/landslide/windstorm

2

Tshogshing Lhakhang (Claystatues) depicting Tree of Four
Schools of Buddhism

Total collapse causing
collateral damage both tothe structure and collection

Earthquake/Soot/Smoke/dust/theft

Damage, deterioration, lossof cultural property

3

Namse Lhakhang (Clay, metal
and wooden statues

Earthquake/Soot/Smoke/dust/theft/excess
humidity

Damage, deterioration, lossof cultural property

4

Thangka painting collection

Soot, smoke, humidity, ﬁre, pest
infestation/theft

5

Textile collection

Humidity, ﬁre, pest

Animal specimen

Damage, burglary, excessive humidity

Ethnographic collection(Utensils, household items, farm
implements

Damage, burglary, excessive humidity

67

Bio-deterioration
Pest infestation
Rodent attacks
Theft and vandalism

Bio-deterioration
Pest infestation
Rodent attacks
Theft and vandalism

Bio-deterioration
Pest infestation
Rodent attacks
Theft and vandalism

Bio-deterioration
Pest infestation
Rodent attacks
Theft and vandalism41

< Negative impacts>

Safety of the visitors/staff and the local communities are on the top most priority list of the museum
management. The above hazards and vulnerabilities will have various negative impacts on the people
while they are in the museum or its surrounding. If an earthquake were to occur, during the day time,
visitors and staﬀ would be at great risk of being buried under the debris, and which may result in injury orcasualty. In case of a ﬁre outbreak from or within the museum, or even from one of the attributes within
the museum could have catastrophic aﬀects on the heritage, people living in the vicinity of the museum.
Winter season is the driest and the coldest season, and the cold makes people to warm themselves
employing various heating methods. Accidents may arise due to various reasons, which may result indevastating ﬁre and burning down the museum and its attributes.
< Most plausible disaster>

Drawing on the lines from the risk analysis of my case study site (Ta Dzong), earthquake is the mostplausible disaster risk that may occur, as there is a history of earthquakes damaging the Ta Dzong.
Moreover, by the virtue of being on the seismic zone, we are vulnerable to earthquakes, and it has
happened many times in the past.

3. Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Plan
National Museum Disaster Management Committee (NMDMC)
Composition of NMDMC
a)

The Director, ex-oﬃcio Chairpersonb)Superintendant of Police or Oﬃcer-in-charge, Royal Bhutan Policec)

The Curator, Chief of Museum Security and second in commandd)

The Sr. Chemist, Conservation Section, National Museume)

The Dy. Chief Accountant, National Museum

Function of NMDMC
a)

The NMDMC shall be responsible for coordinating and managing any disaster management
operations in the museum premises under the direction and supervision of the National Disaster
Management Authorityb)

The NMDMC shall:-

Prepare, review, update and implement the National Museum Disaster Management andContingency Plan-

Monitor and evaluate measures taken for prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response andcapacity building.

-

Ensure establishment and functioning of Critical Disaster Management Facility;-

Ensure mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction into development plan, policy, programme andproject;-

Ensure compliance of the approved hazard zonation and vulnerability map-

Ensure the enforcement of structural and non-structural measures;-

Ensure that information about the event or a disaster is promptly communicated to, Dzongkhag
Disaster Management Committee, NDMA, Department of Disaster Management, RBP and all
stake holders

422.1 Ta Dzong National Museum of Bhutan, Paro-

Ensure that detailed reports and regulars updates on the disaster event is provided to the
Dzongkhag Disaster Management Committee and the Department of Disaster Management
upon completion of ﬁeld assessment of the situation;-

With the support of the Department of Disaster Management promote education, awareness,
capacity building and staﬀ training on hazard, risk, vulnerability and measure to be taken by themuseum staﬀ to prevent, mitigate and respond to disaster;-Conduct regular mock drill
Report on quarterly basis to the DDMC and NDMA on the progress of implementation of theDisaster Management and Contingency Planc)

In case of a disaster, the Chairperson of the NMDMC may exercise all or any of the functions of
the NMDMC, subject to ex post facto ratiﬁcation of the committee.
The NMDMC may frame rules and regulations concerning the conduct of its meetings.

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participantsd)Function of Chairpersona)Regularly review and assess the eﬀectiveness of the Disaster Management and Contingency Planof the Museumb)c)Ensure decision and policy formulated by the NMDMC is implemented
Ensure that disaster risk reduction and disaster management activities are consistent with
Disaster Management Strategic Policy Frameworkd)Provide prompt information on a disaster or an impending disaster situation to the Dzongkhag
Disaster Management Committee and the Department of Disaster Management

Core Planning TeamAs the core planning team, this group is entrusted with the following in case of an emergency and it
consists of:1.

The Director

2.

Fire Brigade In-Charge, Royal Bhutan Police

3.

The Dy. Chief Curator

4.

The Dy. Chief Chemist

5.

Museum disaster focal person

6.

The Administrator

4. Applicability of the knowledge gained from ITC 2017
‒ Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage

As the saying goes ʻPrevention is better than cureʼ this international training course on Disaster Risk
Management of Cultural Heritage is very useful and timely. Useful, because it equips one with necessary
skills and technique and to deal with such eventuality in a holistic approach. The integrated three steps ofdisaster risk management of cultural heritage are as follows:
Before disaster
Risk assessment, risk prevention, preparedness (mitigation)

43

During disasterHow to respond to a disaster with the above points and skills in mind
After disaster
Carry out damage assessment, treatment and recovery and rehabilitation.
Developing Prevention and Mitigation strategies
Components and attributes of the Ta Dzong#

Name of the component

Expected impact

Location

Characteristics/
Signiﬁcance1

Tshogzhing Lhakhang(Tree of Wisdom in the ﬁeldof Buddhas depicting thefour schools of Vajrayana
Buddhism) Clay statues

Fall oﬀ the lotus pedestal
and break into pieces incase of an earthquake

6th Floor of the
Ta Dzong

Sentiment and intangible

2

Namse Lhakhang (Temple ofLord of Wealth) Kubera
Consist of metal and clay
statues

Fall oﬀ the lotus pedestal
and break into pieces incase of an earthquake

5th ﬂoor

Sentiment and intangible

3

Thangka collections
Consist of painting, textile,wood and metal

Burn due to ﬁre, biodeterioration due toexcessive humidity.
Accumulation of soot andgrime

5th and 4th
ﬂoor storage

Object of veneration andworship

4

Textile and costume
collection

Burn due to ﬁre, biodeterioration due toexcessive humidity.
Accumulation of soot andgrime

Storage and3rd ﬂoor

Tangible and costume/
folklife

5Ethnographic collection(Utensils, household items,
farm implements

Damage, burglary,excessive humidity

Second andﬁrst ﬂoor

Folklife

Preventing and mitigating risk
Prevention is better than cure as the saying goes. Although natural disasters cannot be avoided, but canbe tackled eﬀectively with prevention, mitigation and having total preparedness. Various risk prevention,
mitigation and preparedness have been developed and put to practice in times of disaster.
Avoiding hazards
Avoiding hazards had always been a challenge to the museum management, as such risks persists within
the museum and its vicinity. One of the measures is to slash and burn the vegetation around the museum
periphery. Carry out periodical inspection for any leakages from the roofs and pest infestations. Install
weather proof showcases with temperature and humidity control.
Blocking hazards
One of the persistent hazards is the strong winds in the spring season, which sometimes blow away theroof of the museum, causing the roofs to leak and bring in rain which turn cause damage to the objects.
Retroﬁtting of the stronger roof solves the problem of roofs being blown away by strong winds. Fire44

2.1 Ta Dzong National Museum of Bhutan, Paro

has always been a concern for worry, and in order to counter such eventualities, we have installed ﬁrehydrants at strategic locations in the museum compound besides having ﬁre extinguishers in each gallery
and alley of the museum.
Detection of hazards
Deterioration of objects by bio-deteriorating agents is a continuous process, which cannot be stopped
altogether, but can be slowed down up to some extent by means of application of scientiﬁc methods.
Since the objects housed in the museum are the core of the cultural heritage, besides the setting up of
a conservation laboratory, the museum has installed thermometers with graphs in various parts of themuseum to monitor and temperature and humidity. Fire detectors in the museum galleries have been
installed to detect any ﬁre outbreak. To prevent theft, the museum management have installed metal
Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

detectors at the entry and exit points of the museum, CCTVS and manual checking by the security guards.
Reducing hazards
Reduction of hazards is one of the most pertinent issues, which need to be looked at from various
perspectives. For my museum reducing risk means employing more security personnel to man themuseum and its attributes day and night. The security guards are expected to be on guard 24X7, sothat they can keep watch, prevent any disaster from theft to ﬁre outbreak etc. We cannot aﬀord to becomplacent on the issue of reducing risk to the museum and its attributes, since hazards can from any
source. In order to reduce the hazard of ﬁre outbreak, we have minimized the lighting of butter lamps
and incense burning in the two temples of the Ta Dzong. But the end users (worshippers) were adamantthat they may be allowed to continue the worshipping, so we had to compromise on having a place
where these people can lit butter lamps and burn incense a little far away from the Ta Dzong. We also
make sure that the butter lamps are put oﬀ in the evening by the museum assistants. We have also put up
signboards warning people not to smoke in the vicinity of the museum, which is having good impact.
Adaptive capacities
One of the guiding policies of the developmental policy of the government is the preservation andpromotion of our history, tradition and culture, and these has been accorded highest priority in every 5
years plans. The government places much importance to the preservation and promotion of our tangible
and intangible culture. The policy makers have always supported our initiatives and endeavored tomake our dreams come true. From the highest authority to the lowest rung actors, the support has been
impressive and encouraging and will continue to be so. Our policy makers very well know that without
culture, there is no people and country.
Retroﬁtting
As the ﬁre is one of the most imminent hazards to the museum and its collection, during the process of
re-electriﬁcation, safety lines have been included in the system along with ﬁre detector alarms. In orderto minimize the collapse of the walls, concrete reinforcement has been given from the inner portion of
the walls, which were reconstructed. But these reinforcement or addition needs to be relooked from theperspective of disaster risk management expertise. Whether we can term it as retroﬁtting or vulnerability.

45

Development of mitigation measures
After this much desired and important course, I intend to develop a mitigation measures, and in fact,
I have been working on it a few months back, and formed a National Museum Disaster Management
Committee (NMDMC) a few years back. But the committee is now stagnant owing to the non-existenceof skills and equipment. In close consultation of my director and given the required budget, the museum
management shall be implementing the mitigation measures, albeit in a modest manner. The mitigation
measure will begin by training the museum staﬀ, which is the on the forefront of any disaster that may
strike the museum. We will be seeking the assistance of the ﬁre brigade of the Royal Bhutan Police intraining our staﬀ and advising us on the procurement of necessary equipment.
Expenses for the mitigation plan
It is totally out of my reach to project the expenses that may be required to develop, implement andmaintain the mitigation measures in my museum. Nevertheless, once I along with my colleagues carry out
the risk assessment, prevention and mitigation, we can only propose the requirement of the developmentof mitigation measure, equipment, training to the ministry. The ministry in turn deputes an expert tocarry out the feasibility study based on the urgency. I am very optimistic that the required budget will bepromptly approved by the ministry bearing in mind the urgency and importance of the disaster mitigation
plan proposed by the museum management.
Emergency preparedness and response procedures
Safety of the visitors, staﬀ and collection is of utmost importance and hugest priority must be accorded
to the safe evacuation in case of a disaster. As a precautionary measure and to guide people out of themuseum, a ﬂoor map of each ﬂoor in large format will be displayed at a strategic location in the respective
ﬂoor with exit signage. This maps along with list of attributes, location of ﬁre extinguishers, ﬁre hydrants
will be shared with the ﬁre brigade and other stake holders such as the division for cultural properties informat as prescribed in the disaster preparedness form.
Evacuation route
Owing to the sloppy location of the museum, we have very limited empty space near the museum, but wehave ample space just below the museum gate and it can be used as an immediate refuge for people. The
objects can be moved to the new exhibition hall and vice versa n case of disaster.
Prioritization of objects
Our institution being the National Museum of the country, houses many art objects, costumes, andethnographic collection, and all these artifacts are valuable and we cannot value each of them. All these
artifacts are important and needs to be evacuated as far as possible.
During the course of renovating the Ta Dzong, we have proposed that emergency equipment must be
allocated strategic locations in the museum, such as ﬁre alarms, hydrants, CCTVs, which the renovationteam took it very seriously and allocated such measures.

46

2.1 Ta Dzong National Museum of Bhutan, Paro

5. Planning for Emergency Response TeamNational Museum Disaster Management Committee (NMDMC)
Composition of teama)

The Director, ex-oﬃcio Chairpersonb)Superintendent of Police or Oﬃcer-in-charge, Royal Bhutan Policec)

The Curator/Chief of Museum Securityd)

The Sr. Chemist, Conservation Section, National Museume)Conservatorsf)Museum Assistants

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

Salvaging heritage collection
Step-by-step salvaging operation
1.

Damage assessment of the heritage building

2.

Stabilize any attributes of the heritage

3.

Assess the heritage collection

4.

Document ‒ Photographic and sketch as far as possible

5.

Have supplies and stationaries

6.

Barricade the collapsed heritage to prevent any intrusion or theft

7.

Delegate responsibilities to the salvage team members

8.

Identify a safe area for evacuation of the collection

9.

Prepare or mark the area by a grid, for easy inventorying later on

10.

Salvage the undamaged artifacts followed by the broken or damaged ones

11.

Stabilize, clean and wrap them in acid free paper or cloth and have these artifacts transported tothe identiﬁed safe place. Allocate temporary inventory numbering

12.

Clean, number and pack them for transportation to the place (storage) for safe keeping

Museums must have speciﬁc outline for clean-up and salvage procedures for both the collections and thebuildings. These procedures should be prioritized so that staﬀ and emergency suppliers can use their time
wisely and eﬀectively. It is important to consider long-term restoration treatment procedures and list any
suppliers that may be involved if any professional cleaning, drying or repair is needed.

6. Recovery plan
Post Disaster Needs Assessment
Documentation of the heritage/collection
Take on board the stake holders with HI/HP
Prioritizing emergency needs of the heritage + Determine the recovery window
Look for recovery solutions + sequence47

2.2 Protecting the Indigenous Batad Rice Terraces from
Risks of Disasters
Abner O. Lawangen
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Center, Tublay, Philippines

1. Introduction
The Batad Rice Terraces is a part of the Ifugao rice terraces in the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)
in the Philippines, which are referred as the 8th Wonder of the World (National Statistics Oﬃce, 1999). It isa symbol of indigenous ingenuity and engineering skills of the Ifugaos. It consists of aesthetically carved
indigenous rice terraces along the slopes of towering mountains as high as 2,000 meters above sea level
and a well supported hydrologic system that nourish the traditional rice and crops of these people (Figure1). More importantly, these terraces are intertwined to cultural practices and stories of these people,
which transmitted orally from generations to generations. These magniﬁcent terrace landscapes are living
witness of the harmonious and sustainable coexistence of nature and man.
This world famous terrace landscapes has been declared
as UNESCO “World Heritage Site” in 1995 recognizing thesustainable socio-culturally based management by thisindigenous people that resulted to its decades of existence.
Further, this landscapes which are sustainable showcase of
one humanityʼs greatest human ‒ nature interrelationships
demonstrating a sustained socio-ecological ﬂow for hundredsof years are now part of the Globally-Important Agricultural Fig.1 Perspective of the Batad Rice Terraces
Heritage System (GIAHS) (Gomez, 2013).

However, the attributes and values have reportedly been fast deteriorating due to various factors thatneed utmost attention. Further, the rate of deterioration is aggravated by climate disasters suggesting theneed to come up with holistic and futuristic strategies to countermeasure these climate risks.

2. Sustainability and Existing Values and Attributes
This world heritage is a showcase of interrelated attributes and values that contributes to its sustainability(Table 1). It consists of biophysical, socioeconomic and cultural attributes thatoffered a compensatory and support
system to each other enabling its
existence for years (Figure 2). The Batad
heritage site is a package of interacting
but balance social, economic andecological factors. It offers economic
opportunities in an environment friendly
system with application of traditional
knowledge and practise. This terrace

48

Table 1 Existing attributes and values of the Batad Rice Terraces2.2 Protecting the Indigenous Batad Rice Terraces from Risks of Disasters

ecosystem is characterized by its amphitheatre like rice terraces, a clump of traditional residential areas
and traditional rice granaries, a micro forest (muyong) that surrounds and provide the water needs of therice terraces and swidden farms (Figure 3). This rice terraces have sustained these people by providing
heirloom rice and other indigenous crops for centuries, making it an important part of their cultural andhistorical stories. Further, these traditional rice terraces are closely attached to these people and put somuch value on its basic resources like soil, water and forests. On the one hand, the beautiful scenery of thearea makes it also favourite tourist destination in the region augmenting economic activities of the local
populace.

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

Fig. 2 The sustainable development model of the Batad Rice
Terraces.

Fig. 3 Diagrammatic illustration of the Batad Rice Terraces, showing thediﬀerent attributes.

3. Vulnerabilities and Existing Threats
The sustainability of the Batad Rice Terraces is being undermined by weakening of physical and sociocultural components (Figure 4). Natural deterioration of physical resources such as soil and rock materials
contribute to natural decay of the rice paddy ponds and walls and the increasing external pressure
such as the intrusion of chemical and high yielding varieties in the traditional rice ecosystem brought
tremendous alteration in the once sustainable rice based ecosystem. On the one hand, weak policy andregulation and unsustainable site management are critical threats that have direct contribution in thedeterioration and non-protection of this ecosystem. The lack of long term development blue print for thesite and the absence of policies that promotes sustainable
use and protection from climate hazards of this heritagesite make it vulnerable. Lastly, the distortion of the intergenerational knowledge and skills transfer as result of thedeclining economic opportunities in the traditional riceterraces, as a result of the continuing climate pressure,accelerates its deterioration. Young people are moving toother areas, to ﬁnd other economic activities, leaving therice terraces to older population, who are normally on theirless productive years, thereby, distorting the sustainable

Fig. 4 Existing threats of the Batad Rice Terraces

traditional operation of these landscapes (Dizon et al., 2012).

49

4. Disaster Impact to Cultural Heritage and Vulnerability of Attributes and Values
A historical profile of disasters in the Batad Rice Terraces since 1980 showed four (4) major hazards ‒typhoon, drought, giant earthworms and chemicals (Figure 5). Analysis of these disasters showed direct
impacts to the diﬀerent attributes and values. Evidently, traditional terraces and cultural belief and rituals
are the most impacted attributes by these hazards, while muyong is the least aﬀected; this is due to its
resilient nature that resulted from abundant vegetation (Chen and Qiu, 2012). On the contrary, typhoonand drought brought significant unfavourable impacts (red-high) to aesthetic, economic, ecologicaland associational values of the traditional rice terraces (Cordillera Regional Disaster Risk Reduction andManagement Council, 2014).

Fig. 5 Disaster history (upper left) in the traditional rice ecosystem, impact of hazards to attributes (upper right) and to heritage values (down)This analysis demonstrated further that typhoons and drought are the more serious hazards faced by the
Batad rice terraces, and the traditional terraces and the socio-cultural components are the most aﬀected
attributes while the most impacted values is aesthetics, economic, ecological and associational.

5. Prevention and Mitigation Strategies
The hazards, risks and vulnerability of the Batad Rice Terraces heritage suggest a comprehensive
intervention in order to address the complex challenges. These strategies include strategic level planning,
physical planning, technical level, management system and capacity building (Figure 6). Specifically,
strategic level includes crafting of policies and regulation supporting sustainable use, protection andconservation of the traditional rice terraces. It can also include risk insurance and documentation ofindigenous knowledge system and practices. On the other hand, centers on the development of soundland use and zoning in the heritage site, community based disaster and climate resiliency planning andentrepreneurial planning. Technical level intervention addresses the degrading components of the riceterraces such as application of riprap to reinforce walls and ponds, strict use of indigenous materials andfarms implements and reconstruction of degraded rice paddies. On the one hand, the management
system promotes the development of a long term site development, vulnerability assessment, andregular50

2.2 Protecting the Indigenous Batad Rice Terraces from Risks of Disasters

monitoring of the heritage site. Lastly, capacity building among the different stakeholder is critical.
Establishment of an indigenous knowledge training system and center and integration of the indigenous
knowledge and practices of rice terraces management to school curricula is anticipated to give positive
result in overhauling the dying interest of young generation to traditional rice farming.

WŚǇƐŝĐĂů

>ĞǀĞůWŽůŝĐǇΘƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ
ZŝƐŬŝŶƐƵƌĂŶĐĞ
/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶĂůŝǌĂ
ƚŝŽŶŽĨƌŝĐĞƚĞƌƌĂĐĞƐĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽ
ŶŽĨŚĞƌŝƚĂŐĞƐŝƚĞĂŶĚ IKSPPlans(Zoning, LU,
Sitedevelopment)
Integrationof CH in
DRRM/CCAComBased
DRRM SOP
Local entrep
planWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ

dĞĐŚŶŝĐĂů

>ĞǀĞů
Reconstruction
Revitalizationof IKSP like
͞tufing͟(ripraping) inslope protection
and siteconservation
Strict use ofindigenous rice
varietiesDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ

^ǇƐƚĞŵComprehensive

sitevulnerability
assessment
reforestation
Regularmonitoring andmaintenanceactivitiesĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ

ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
Establish
indigenous
knowledge
training system& centerIntegration of
CH in schools
Experiential
learning(children)

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĐ

Fig. 6 Prevention and mitigation strategies

6. Looking for the Future
Pilot Study: Cultural Rice Terrace Resiliency: Securing Food, Preserving Heritage
The complex challenges in the Batad traditional rice terraces resulted in the identification ofcomprehensive program but sta‒‒‒‒rting from a small activity that has direct relationship to the basic
need of the people that is food is anticipated to propel the eﬀort of building resiliency on this traditional
rice landscape. This pilot study goal is to strengthening of resiliency of the traditional rice terrace while
ensuring food security and heritage preservation through active community ‒ government partnership. It
has four components; 1) establish community based training and experiential learning among youths anchildren to ensure continuity of indigenous rice terrace management, 2) institutionalize the integrationof cultural heritage to local resiliency program, 3) ensure continuity and integrity of cultural heritage
through sustainable ecotourism and entrepreneurial activities, and 4) capitalize on existing indigenous
practices and technologies in furthering rice terrace ecosystem sustainability. This program shallencourage participation of the diﬀerent stakeholders speciﬁcally local community, local government, nongovernment organization, academia, and others. Activities include public consultations, site visits, trainingof core team and leaders, cultural heritage and DRRM planning and ﬁeld surveys and documentations.

51

Reference1) Cordillera Regional Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council. Regional Disaster Risk Reduction
and Management Plan, 2014.
2) Chen, B. and Qiu Z. Consumers Attitudes towards Edible Wild Plants: A Case of Study of Noto Peninsula,
Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan. International Journal of Forestry Research, pp. 1 -6, 2012. Retrieved on
November 6, 2017 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/872413.
3) Dizon, J.T., Calderon, M.M., Sajise, A.J., Andrada, R.T. II, & Salvador, M.G. Youthsʼ Perception of andAttitudes Towards the Ifugao Rice Terraces. Journal of Environmental Science and Management,
Volume 15, Number 1, ppt. 3-6, 2012.
4) Gomez, R. Food Security in the Terraces: The case of Globally ‒ Important Agricultural Heritage Systems
in Ifugao, Central Cordillera, Philippines. IAMURE International Journal of Ecology and Conservation. Pp.
2-9, 2013.

52

2.3 Gallipoli Historical Site

Hamit BIRTANE
Technical Expert, Directorate of Gallipoli Historical Site, Turkey

1. SiteGallipoli is a peninsula in northwest part of Turkey. It is nationally protected area, covers 33.000 hectares(330 km2) at the southern end of the Gallipoli Peninsula on the European side of the Dardanelles. Gallipoli
Historical Site is the place where the Gallipoli Campaign took place in The First World War. It is one of thebest preserved battleﬁeld area from the 1.st WW. and therefore it has been accepted to the World Heritage
Tentative List at 2014. There are one city (Eceabat) and 8 village settlements in the Historical Site that haveabout 10.000 populations in total.

Fig.1 Photograph: World, Turkey, Gallipoli Peninsula

Gallipoli Peninsula has been a settlement area since 12.000 BC. This is an area where the majestic
civilizations have been inhabited by different cultural formations and hybridizations for centuries. So
it contains important archaeological sites. There are 32 ancient settlements and hill towns/tumulus in
Historical Site;
Kilisetepe-Maydatos (3.400 BC), Sestos (650 BC), Elaeus (8600 BC), Protesilaos (5.000 BC), Alopekonnesos(700 BC), Araplos (600 BC) and Bigalı (5.000-4.000 BC) are some of those ancient settlements.
Gallipoli Peninsula is both an encounter and a border zone between Asia and Europe and its civilizations.
So it has a very strategical status. Being a region through which different cultures pass and in which
others meet and interact, it has witnessed important events;
Trojan Wars (1.250 BC)
Ionian colonization (750-330 BC)
Persian invasion (they passed the Dardanelles at Sestos at 5th century BC)
Alexander the Great passed sea from Elaeus (4th century BC)
Roman times (133 BC-396 AC)
53

Byzantine Empire Period (4th century BC - 14th century AC)
Ottoman Empire Period (14th century ‒ 20th century)
The Fist World War (1914-1918)
The Historical Site have fortress from Ottoman Empire, many defense structure remains, graveyards andcemeteries of both side of war, monuments in memory of soldiers, shield/trench, tunnels, blast holes,
redoubts, cannons and many other weapons from the First World War.
Gallipoli peninsula also has many natural assets. Peninsulaʼs one side looks over Aegean Sea and other to
Dardanelles. There are many coves ad beaches in the site. The Salt Lake is a candidate for wetlands status.
There is spectacular geological formations; Büyükkemikli, Küçükkemikli, Sfenks. % 54 percent of the site isforestland and it contains much kind of trees and plants. % 35 percentage of the site is agricultural landand eight villages in the site are economically based on agriculture.
We are trying to reveal, restore and protect all the values in the site. But also there are 10 thousand
inhabitants and annual 2 million visitors that use the site. And we want to design the all site as an outdoor
museum with its all assets. While doing this we are trying to achieve a balance between protection andusages. The protection should not restrict meeting the needs of inhabitants and visitors. And the usage
should not harm the values.
Table1 List of Attributes and their values

Attributes
Memorials andMartyrsʼ Cemeteries

Ancient Settlements
Sites
Bastions-cannons

Ottoman Empire
Allied State
Urban

Historic

Archeological
NaturalWrecksMuseums

Objects in museums
Castles/fortress

Trenches/shields lines
Landing Beaches

Geological/Topographic Formations

Civil Architectural structures/buildings

Numbers

Values77

Authentic, Historical, Artistic, Associational

29

Archeological, Historical

32

Authentic, Historical, Artistic, Associational

95 % ofthe site

Historical, Archeological, Natural

10

Historical3

Historical, Artistic

5

Archeological, Historical, Authentic and Artistic

7

Historical, Associational

38

Architectural22≈ 5000
193 km5

Historical

Artistic, Historical, ArcheologicalHistorical, Archeological

Natural, Historical, Associational

2. Risks and Disasters
Because of its geological, techtonical and topographical structure Gallipoli Historical Site faces withvarious kinds of hazards.
The entire peninsula is at the ﬁrst degree earthquake zone. There have been 33 earthquakes that directly
aﬀect the Gallipoli Historical Site from 1912 until 2015. Eight of them are above the magnitude “6”.
54 percent of the site is forestland and it has the high risk of ﬁre. Between the dates of 1969-2012, there
are 132 forest ﬁres in the Historical Site. 13 of them were serious and burnt totally 14.742 ha forest areas.
Landslide, ﬂoods and erosion are other risks for the site.

542.3 Gallipoli Historical Site

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

Fig. 2 Risk map

3. Vulnerability Assessment
After specifying the attributes and the risks the site faced with, the vulnerabilities are deﬁned. They had
been considered to link the attributes with diﬀerent type of hazards.

Fig. 355

3.1 Risk Assessment

By consideration of vulnerabilities the possible negative impacts of hazards on the heritage attributes had
been listed.

Fig. 4

3.2 Scenario

For the worst scenario an earthquake and by itʼs trigger ﬁre and landslide will be occurred.
➢ Settlements will be damaged/aﬀected➢ Late for ﬁrst response/aid➢ Monuments, martyrdoms and cemeteries are destroyed➢ Castles and another defense structures will be damaged➢ Museums and itʼs objects will be damaged or destroyed➢ The network of facilities and services destroy➢ Casualties of residents and visitors
3.3 Risk Reduction and Preparedness
Table 2Attribute
Castle56

ImpactMitigation

Responsibility

DamageMaintenance, Retroﬁtting

DGHS, Museum

Memorials andMartyrsʼ Cemeteries

DamageRetroﬁtting, relocating,ﬁre preservation systems,
Cleaning the surrounding
trees/ bush/grass, drainage
system, non frame method,

DGHS,CWGC, Fire Fighting Oﬃce,
Forestry Aﬀairs Oﬃce

Urban Site

DamageMaintenance, Retrofitting,drainage system, firepreservation systems

DGHS, Local Government, FireFighting Oﬃce

2.3 Gallipoli Historical Site

Ancient Settlement

Damagearchaeological excavation
plan, land use planning

DGHS, Museum, University

Civil Architectural
structures/buildings(17)

Damage,Collapse,
Partial loss

Warning systems,
Retrofitting, maintenance,
monitoring, drainage
method, retaining wall
method, ﬁre prevention
system

DGHS, Local Government,
Fire Fighting Oﬃce

Landing Beaches

Damage tolandscape andruins of the war

Non frame method forlandslide, land use planning

DGHS, Urbanization andEnvironment Ministry, Coastal
Safety Agency

Bastions-cannons (2)DamageMaintenance

DGHS
Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

3.4 Response and Evacuation➢ Emergency Response Plan
➢ Emergency Resp¬onse Procedure➢ Coordination with other agencies/institutions➢ Emergency Response Teams➢ Training and Practies➢ Inventories, maps, assessment forms➢ Logistic/Emergency equipments➢ Post event damage and risk assessment, evacuation, storage etc

Fig. 5 Evacuation Plan

57

3.5 Recovery

Post-Disaster Need Assessment
Policy and Strategy Setting
Institutional Framework
Finance
Implementation and Monitorig
3.6 Pilot Project

Building water reservoir
Goal; protecting the heritage assets against the ﬁre.
Objectives; to obtain water source for ﬁre intervention and to minimize the damage because of the ﬁre.
Undertaken activities; Project design, Location selection
Involving; Technical experts, Fire ﬁghter oﬃce, Local Government, Forestry and water aﬀair oﬃce.
Duration; 9-12 months.
Resource; DGHS and Local Government budget.
Stakeholders; Trying to convince them of the importance of cultural heritage asset for national memoryand showing the results of economic, social and cultural loss in case of damage.
Showing the possibility of being aﬀected by the event in case of failing to control.

58

2.4 Disaster Risk Management Of Cultural Heritage:
The Case Of Museum of Malawi
Innocent Hudson Mankhwala
Archivist, Department of Culture, Malawi

1. Introduction
Malawi is a landlocked country in south eastern Africa, bordered by Zambia to the northwest, Tanzania to
the northeast and Mozambique to the south, southwest and southeast. It lies between latitudes 9 °and
18°S, and longitudes 32°and 36°E. Malawi territory spreads over 118,480 square kilometers, 79% is landwith 21% of the total area consisting of bodies of water. The Great Rift Valley runs through the country
from north to south, and to the east of the valley lies Lake Malawi (also called Lake Nyasa), making up overthree-quarters of Malawi's eastern boundary. Lake Malawi is 587 kilometres (365 mi) long and 84 kilometres(52 mi) wide. Malawiʼs economy is highly reliant on agriculture, which accounts for approximately 90% of
its export earnings and 45% of its gross domestic product (Oﬃce of the President and Cabinet, 2005)

2. The Case Study Project Area

Fig.1 A picture of Museum of Malawi

The Museum of Malawi is the main museum in Malawi. It has been chosen because it has a rich collectionof the countries cultural heritage. It is where the earliest clothing before civilization is held, in addition, it
also houses old costumes of early traditional dances, earliest hunting weapons and traditional medicines.
These are just but few items which are exhibited that portray the culture of Malawi. However, thisimportant cultural heritage site is in danger of losing its important collection because it does not havea disaster mitigation plan. Furthermore, the building is not purposely built to protect the items in its
holdings from the common disasters in Malawi which are ﬂoods and ﬁre.
As a background to the establishment of the museum of Malawi, is must be noted that this museum waspreviously known as the Nyasaland Museum and was established by the Museum Ordinance which wasenacted in May 1957. The establishment of a Museum in Malawi was largely due to the interest shownby the Nyasaland Society (now the Society of Malawi). The Society of Malawi exerted its influence on
the Government, which in turn passed legislation in 1957, to establishment of a Board of Trustees toadminister the Museum. The initial collections consisted of ethnographic and historical objects mostly
donated by the Society of Malawi and other interested individuals and organizations. The ﬁrst exhibitions

59

were organized on a general theme based on displays of natural history, ethnography, history andarchaeology. The museum was opened to the public in July 1960.
In March 1981, the Museum Dissolution Bill was passed in Parliament to dissolve the Museum Boardof Trustees and revert the administration of the Museums of Malawi to Central Government. Thus, theMuseums of Malawi became a Government Department.

3. Attributes And Values
The museum of Malawi has several attributes which carries with them different values. Few attributes
have been selected for the purposes of this study. The basis of the selection is that these attributes havea signiﬁcant cultural connection with the people of Malawi. Secondly, these attributes have never been
removed from the galleries since they were collected while other displays and removed from time totime. The first attribute is the Nyasaland Transport, this was the first passenger bus in Malawi and it
provides basis of the history of the transportation system in Malawi. The second attribute is the Traditional
Iron Weapons. This attribute carries both historical and technological values; it provides information on
the kind of weapons that were used before civilisation during the Iron Age period. The third attributeare the Domestic Appliances, these appliances provide the cultural and historical values. They provide
information on the kind of home appliances that were used especially in the kitchen. It must be notedthat some of these appliances are still in use up to this present time. The forth attribute is the Slave Trade(Model), this carries both the historical and cultural values. It shows how Africans were being shipped tothe coastal regions to be sold as slaves during the Atlantic Slave Trade. Other attributes are the Water
Pumping Machine and the Traditional Hut.

Fig.2 Nyasaland Transport

Fig.4 Domestic Appliances60

Fig.3 Slave Trade

Fig.5 Iron Weapons

2.4 Disaster Risk Management Of Cultural Heritage: The Case Of Museum of Malawi

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

Fig.6

4. Risk Analysis
Malawi has experienced various kinds of disasters that are both natural and human induced disasters.
Some of these disasters are earthquakes, landslides, Fire and floods. This study focused on the floods
because of their frequency. Over the past few years, the country has been experiencing heavy rainfalls
that results in disastrous ﬂoods and cause serious damages to property, lives and the cultural heritage.
Therefore, the disaster management plan is meant to prepare for all forms of disaster more especiallyﬂoods. The risk analysis therefore focuses on the ﬂoods as the main hazard. For the museum of Malawi,factors that will increase the vulnerabilities are poor drainage system, absence of routine maintenance ofthe roof and the building, Presence of old and long trees and wooden ﬁttings for displaying the museum
collection and the wooden ﬂoor. In a situation, the disaster will have an impact on the community, theheritage and the safety of visitors and staﬀ.

Fig.7

61

5. Mitigation
This is about the capacity of the museum of Malawi and its coping mechanism in times of disasters. The
disaster management plan will build on these available factors below.
1.

Documentation and inventory of the museum collection (onsite and oﬀsite)

2.

The location of the storage area located in a diﬀerent

3.

The Museum objects are displayed in a glass which is raised above knee level

4.

Procedure for Handling Objects Manual Available

5.

Availability of the First Aid Kit

Fig.8

6. Response And Recovery
For the museum collection to be successfully salvaged in times of disaster; there is need to have a proper
response team and involvement of various stakeholders for immediate, medium and long term plans.
Some of the key stakeholders involved which are of high power and high interest are the museum
management, cultural heritage groups, the department of culture.

62

2.4 Disaster Risk Management Of Cultural Heritage: The Case Of Museum of Malawi

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

Fig.9

References
1) Davidson, Basil. Africa in History: Themes and Outlines (Revised and Expanded ed.). New York: Collier
Books, MacMillan Publishing Company, 1991.
2) Kunreather, H. Disaster Mitigation and Insurance: Learning from Katrina. Pennesylvania:
Sage Publications, 2006.
3) https://web.facebook.com/search/top/?q=museums%20of%20malawi

632.5 Disaster Risk Reduction for George Town
UNESCO Word Heritage Site
Ang Ming Chee
George Town World Heritage Incorporated, Malaysia

1. Introduction
George Town, which is located at the State of Penang of the northern peninsula of Malaysia, was inscribed
as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2008 for three outstanding universal values: multicultural trading
town (criterion II), living heritage (criterion III), and a unique architecture, culture and townscape (criterionIV) together with the city of Malacca. Both cities was the historic seaway that has played a crucial role
in regional and global trade for at least a millennium, and they are now one of the most popular tourist
destination in Malaysia.

Fig.1 George Town UNESCO World Heritage Site, Source: George Town Special Area Plan (2016)

George Town in particular, has risen to be one of the most influential secondary city in Malaysia. Thiscity hosted the administrative, cultural and political centre for the State of Penang, and has beencommitted to the Millennium Development Goals. To promote sustainable development for George
Town UNESCO World Heritage Site, George Town World Heritage Incorporated was founded on 21 April
2010 as the heritage agency for the State Government of Penang to manage, monitor, and promote thesite, and support the Penang State Government on heritage matters. With collaboration from local andinternational stakeholders, most of the 3,500 pre-war shophouses and monuments have been restored
and conserved, with parallel eﬀorts in safeguarding the living heritage of the multicultural heritage of thepeople.

642.5 Disaster Risk Reduction for George Town UNESCO Word Heritage Site

2. Cultural Heritage and Disaster Risk Reduction
George Town larger city, and the world heritage site in particular, has faced very few natural hazards since
the port city was established by Francis Light in 1876. Unfortunately, urbanization, globalization andglobal warming have increased the disaster risks for this historic city. Potential hazards in particular ﬁreand ﬂood, may have large impact to the city if the people remain distance from preparedness to disasterrisk reduction.

George Town and its sister city Melaka are one of three pilot sites for the UNESCO project entitled “Capacity

Building for Disaster Risk Reduction of Heritage Cities in Southeast Asia and Small Island Developing
Sates in the Paciﬁc” along with Old Town Jakarta and Levuka Historical Port. It aims to implement the

Sendai Framework for Disaster Reduction 2015-2030 in the Asia-Paciﬁc region by building the capacity of
Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

heritage practitioners, disaster managers, government oﬃcials, the community and any other stakeholder
in heritage cities. As a part of this project, George Town has been tasked with developing a Disaster Risk
Reduction program that can be implemented within a year, as well as longer term management plan andstrategies to integrate into the overall heritage management of George Town.
George Town World Heritage site in particular, have important attributes, that needs cater made disasterrisk reduction strategies for each of them as summarized in the following table:
Table.1 The Attributes, Threats and Vulnerabilities of George Town UNESCO World Heritage Site

Attributes

Threats

Vulnerabilities

Multi-cultural trading towns,
forged from the mercantile andexchanges of Malay, Chinese,and Indian cultures and threesuccessive European colonial
powers for almost 500 years,
imprints on the architecture andurban form, technology andmonumental art

・Globalization
・Modernization
・Homogeneity of trades

・Irrelevant to contemporary daily needs.
・Unable to adapt new changes
・Competition from new businesses.
・Lack of support from local community

Living testimony to the multicultural heritage and traditionof Asia, and European colonial
influences, which include multicultural tangible and intangible
heritage is expressed in the great
variety of religious buildings ofdifferent faiths, ethnic quarters,
the many languages, worshipand religious festivals, dances,
costumes, art and music, food, anddaily life.

・Urbanization
・Lifestyle changes
・Lack of committed
individuals to inherit
cultural heritage

・Taking for granted attitude
・Lack of systematic documentation
・Passive participation from the community

Unique architecture, culture andtownscape, with exceptional rangeof shophouses and townhouses.
These buildings show manydifferent types and stages ofdevelopment of the building type.

・Fire・Flood・Deterioration
・Termites・Thief・Density of city narrow
・Water ﬂow submit to sea level・Fabric (wooden structure)・Underestimated the extent of risk
・Lack of maintenance・Frequency of festival using ﬁre (symbolic
meaning)65

3. Disaster Management System for George Town
Despite the fact that Malaysia is a country that faced very little disaster, there are still threats of ﬂood fromthe monssons, ﬁre and landslides. The National Disaster Management Agency is the Lead Agency of the
National Disaster Management in Malaysia. Operation of disaster management depends on the scale ofthe disaster and is operated either at the National, State and district levels with reference to the Directive
No. 20 which details the deﬁnition, operation, roles, responsibilities and processes during any disaster.
While the documentation of disaster management in Malaysia is seemingly prepared and complete,professional needs on disaster management for cultural heritage remain limited. This is due to theconcept remain relatively new, and there are little trained expects in the disaster risk management on
cultural heritage in Malaysia.
Therefore, by placing George Town UNESCO World Heritage Site as a case study, and by working with
UNESCO Jakarta on the project of “Development of Draft DRR Strategy of Heritage Cities for George Town
World Heritage Site”, this eﬀort will streamlined and popularized the concept of disaster risk reduction for
the World Heritage Site, as well as other important buildings outside the site.
The project that is scheduled to commence in March 2018 will be led by George Town World Heritage
Incorporated, together with key stakeholders for the pilot project. Together, the project will identify thegap of current disaster management in the George Town and propose the most possible solution to theFederal Government. The Development of draft Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy and Relevant Action Plan
shall also be useful in the education for the wider public. This is in particular to the other heritage cities in
Malaysia which have always referred to George Town as the city of reference.
More importantly, after the big ﬂood that hit Penang in 5 November 2017, disaster is no longer a term
foreign to the general public in Penang. Almost 80 percent of Penang were submerged in water duringthat fateful morning. The threat of global warming has ﬁnally arrived in Penang yet almost 99 percent of
the population are unprepared. Having such real threat in relevant to the larger population needs, it is aripe moment to mainstreaming disaster risk reduction concept for the Penang people.
One community consultation workshop with the local community living in and around the site with theaims to collect data, identify vulnerabilities/risks to the structural and non-structural assets have alreadyconducted in October 2017. The Penang State Museum has agreed to adopt disaster risk reduction for
cultural heritage for their restoration project on the 100 years old State Museum. A national workshop is
also scheduled in March 2018 with the local government and agencies, heritage site managers, national/
provincial disaster risk management agency, international and local experts, community members, andproperty owners to receive advice and input, obtain necessary documents, and check feasibility.

4. Way Forward
Disaster risk reduction training will be useful for cultural heritage and general living needs. Therefore,
George Town World Heritage Incorporated will continue to educate the public on this concept, thus
incorporate the concepts through partnership with the professional, public and private. It is only withcollective action that important valuables can be safeguarded and public are more prepared from disaster.

66

2.6 Fostering Resilience of Cultural Heritage Site ofSão Luiz do Paraitinga, Brazil
Victor Marchezini
CEMADEN, National Early and Monitoring Centre for Natural Disasters, Brazil

1. Introduction
Cultural heritage can be defined as a broader array of places such as historic cities, living culturallandscapes, gardens or sacred forests and mountains, technological or industrial achievements in the
recent past and even sites associated with painful memories and war. Collections of movable andimmoveable items within sites, museums, historic properties and archives have also increased signiﬁcantly
in scope, “testifying not only to the lifestyles of royalty and the achievements of great artists, but also to
the everyday lives of ordinary people. At the same time intangibles such as knowledge, beliefs and value
systems are fundamental aspects of heritage that have a powerful inﬂuence on peopleʼs daily choices andbehaviors”(Jigyasu et al 2013, p.13). Cultural heritage is becoming at increasing risk due to extreme eventsand the progression of vulnerability.
Today, awareness about disaster risks concerning cultural and natural heritage sites is increasing in several
sectors (academy, practitioners, policymakers etc.). The Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015) brieﬂymentioned the agenda of cultural heritage. One of the priorities for action pointed out that knowledge,
innovation and education should be used to “build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels”, and the“information should incorporate relevant traditional and indigenous knowledge and culture heritage andbe tailored to diﬀerent target audiences, taking into account cultural and social factors” (UNISDR 2005,
p.9). The Sendai Framework for Action (2015-2030) addressed the issue of natural and cultural heritage
in disaster risk reduction and resilience agenda: “It is urgent and critical to anticipate, plan for and reduce
disaster risk in order to more effectively protect persons, communities and countries, their livelihoods,
health, cultural heritage, socioeconomic assets and ecosystems, and thus strengthen their resilience”(UNISDR 2015, p.10-19).
The importance of cultural and natural heritage was also reinforced in the New Urban Agenda ‒ Habitat III,
adopted in Quito, Ecuador, in October, 2016. Habitat III added new considerations and roles of the culturaland natural heritage, as well as exposed some dimensions of vulnerability that involved them. One of theﬁrst statements declares that natural and cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible, will be integrated
in urban and territorial policies and adequate investments will be provided to “safeguard and promotecultural infrastructures and sites, museums, indigenous cultures and languages, as well as traditional
knowledge and the arts, highlighting the role that these play in the rehabilitation and revitalization ofurban areas, and as a way to strengthen social participation and the exercise of citizenship” (UN-HABITAT
2016, p.8-17). The Quito Declaration stated the urban extensions need to be planned, avoiding spatial andsocio-economic segregation and gentriﬁcation, providing high-quality buildings and public spaces, while
preserving cultural heritage and preventing and containing urban sprawl. The document also stressedplanning instruments, including master plans, zoning guidelines, building codes, coastal management
policies, and strategic development policies as key elements to protect tangible and intangible cultural
heritage and landscapes from potential disruptive impacts of urban development and other types of67

natural and technological hazards.
Brazil has 5,570 municipalities, only 957 of them have risk mapping and are monitored by National Early
Warning and Monitoring Centre for Natural Disasters (Cemaden). Among the municipalities monitored
by Cemaden, 127 towns are listed by the National Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage (IPHAN),
containing 830 (66%) of the 1257 tangible cultural assets in Brazil. Two towns alone, Rio de Janeiro (145assets) and Salvador (102 assets) have many tangible and intangible cultural heritage assets and bothof them are built in risk-prone areas, exposed to floods, landslides, storms, coastal floods. Although
they have state and municipal civil defence, the cultural heritage sectors are not involved in disaster risk
management issues. São Luiz do Paraiatinga town is one of the cultural heritage site that was damaged
during disasters. Some of its assets were listed in 1982 as cultural heritage by CONDEPHAAT ‒ Sao Paulo
State Council of Historical, Archaeological, Artistic and Touristic Heritage Defense. In January 4, 2010,
the city experienced an extreme flood. The Paraitinga River reached 12 meters above its normal level,
submerging nearly eighty percent of the urban area, several neighborhoods and the entire historicalcenter, where churches, schools and 19th century housing structures were located. Half of the population
became homeless (5,000 persons), including members of civil society and local government, as well as
tourists. The township had to implement not only material reconstruction, but also a long-term social
recovery process (Marchezini, 2015a; 2015b), a crucial issue that received little emphasis in the literatureand studies about disasters. Another topic quite recently addressed is disaster risk management plansfor cultural heritage sites. Our project aims to contribute to this debate. The Brazilian Plan for Risk
Management and Disaster Response was launched in 2012, but Iphan was not involved in its formulation.
UNESCOʼs resource manual Managing Disaster Risk for Cultural Heritage published in 2010 was onlytranslated into Portuguese in 2015. There is an urgent need to build an integrated approach to foster
resilience and EWS in cities that have intangible and tangible cultural heritage assets. Many challenges
remain. Cemaden and Iphan need to strengthen their articulation to formulate and implement a Brazilian
strategy for resilience of cities of art. São Luiz do Paraiting is a good living lab to this endeavor.

2. The Cultural Heritage Site
CONDEPHAAT listed São Luiz do Paraitinga as heritage site since 1982. However, it was only in 2012, after
the 2010 ﬂood, that the National Institute of Historical and Artistic Heritage ‒ IPHAN recognized the stateof emergency and then listed the town as national heritage in order to contribute for the restauration.
The delimitation of the area of the listed urban complex covers more than 450 buildings and the visualpreservation of the surroundings, with diﬀerent types of attributes, associated values, vulnerabilities andrisks (Figure 1). The urban and architectural landmarks in the perimeter of the urban area have public
protection and encompass the Paraitinga river, streets and areas seriously aﬀected by the ﬂood. Before
the 2010 ﬂood, the colonial historical center held catholic churches that were traditionally endowed withdeep cultural meanings as the space for religious rites (baptisms, conﬁrmations, weddings) and festivals.
The over two hundred houses built in the 19th century denote colonial and imperial periods architectural
style and express the prosperity of the Brazilian coﬀee economy between 1840ʼs and1930ʼs. Many of theseproperties are situated in risk-prone areas (Figure 2). Intangible cultural heritage are also vulnerable todisasters, but it can also foster the coping strategies and resilience of people who make the city (Agier2011). In 2010, local people showed diverse expressions of cultural resistance (Marchezini, 2015b). Thissocial capital can also be used to strengthen local capacity in order to reduce risks posed to cultural68

2.6 Fostering Resilience of Cultural Heritage Site of São Luiz do Paraitinga, Brazil

heritage. It is very important to develop a participatory approach to build disaster risk management plansthat protect the tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Our approach is based in previous approachand eﬀorts developed in our case study (see Marchezini and Trajber, 2016; Marchezini et al, 2017).

Attributes

Type ofattribute

Type ofmaterial

AssociatedvaluesVulnerability

Flood

Damages tocollection,
tourists
and local
community

Flood
Lanslide

Damages tocollections

Flood
Fire

Damages tocollections

Flood

Damages
to buildings
andinhabitants

Condephaat
Local
Community
Iphan

Flood

Economicand social(rentalhouses)Tourists
Local
Community
Private sector

Flood

Economicand social

Immovable
Tangible
Cultural

Organic
andinorganic

Religious
Architectural

Social(Tourists,elderlypeople,youth)
Institutional(lack of plan)MercêsChapel(Point 2)

Immovable
MovableTangible

Organic
andinorganic

Religious
Architectural

Lack ofcontingency
plan

Elpidio dos
Santosʼmuseumand its
collections(Point 3)

Immovable
MovableTangible
Intangible
Cultural

Organic
andinorganic

CulturalArchitectural

200 houses
in Matriz
Plaza (Point
4)

Immovable
Tangible
Cultural

Organic
andinorganic

CulturalArchitectural

Carnival(Point 5)

MovableIntangible
Cultural

Organic
andinorganic

CulturalArtistic

DivineFestival(Point 6)

MovableIntangible
Cultural

Organic
andinorganic

Religious
CulturalFig.1 Attributes of the site

Physical(houses withclay bricks
around themuseum)Objects
Physical (claybricks)Social(elderly);
economic
Social (elderly,
youth);
tourists
economic
Social (urban
and rural
Community)

Risks

Stakeholders
Regional
Religious
Authority
Local
Community
Condephaat
Iphan
Tourists
Local
Community
Condephaat
Iphan
Local
Community
Tourists
NGO AmiSãoLuiz
Iphan

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

MatrizCatholic
Church(Point 1 in
the map)

Hazard/threatLocal
Community
Tourists

Fig.2 Flood and landslide risk mapping of Paraitingaʼs heritage site.

69

3. Disaster Risk Management Plans For Cultural Heritage Site Of São Luiz do Paraitinga
There are some dynamic pressures that can amplify the disaster risk scenarios of this important cultural
heritage site. Land use changes in the Paraitinga watershed drived by eucalyptus oil production and its
high prices in the global market can arise the erosion and degradation of the watershed, reducing theinfiltration of water during heavy rains increasing the flood-prone areas. Heavy rains for a long period
due to El Niño eﬀects trigger ﬂoods, landslides and debris ﬂoods in the watershed, breaking smalls dams
in rural areas and amplyfing the floods above to 12 meters, damaging Matriz Church and collapsing
heritage buildings built with clay bricks, causing deaths and long term effects that impede people torestablish intangible heritage assets (Divine Festival, Carnival etc.). In order to reduce the disaster risks
for cultural heritage it is very important to build structural and non-structural measures. Some nonstructural measures include early warning system (EWS) and disaster risk management plans. In our casestudy, we developed a participatory methodology for building DRM plans in cultural heritage sector andother guidelines to improve people-centered EWS. For each cultural heritage asset (Figure 3 and 4), we
identified some key stakeholders and mitigation actions that can be developed, such as participatory
contingency plan, educational campaigns and other tools that can help to build evacuation routes (Figure5), such as Disaster Imagination Game (DIG).
Attribute

MatrizCatholic
Church(1)

Type

Immovable
Tangible
CulturalMaterial

Organic
andinorganicMercêsChapel(2)

Immovable
MovableTangible

Organic
andinorganic

Elpidio dos
Santosʼmuseumand its
collections(3)

Immovable
MovableTangible
Intangible
Cultural

Organic
andinorganic

200 houses
in Matriz
Plaza (4)Immovable
Tangible
Cultural

Organic
andinorganic

ValuesReligious
Architectural

Vulnerability

Social(Tourists,elderlypeople,youth)
Institutional(lack of plan)

Religious
Architectural

Lack ofcontingency
plan

CulturalArchitectural

Physical(houses withclay bricks
around themuseum)Objects

CulturalArchitectural

Physical (claybricks)Social(elderly);
economic

Fig.3 Disaster risk management plans for cultural heritage assets

70

Hazard

Flood

Risks

Damages tocollection,
tourists
and local
community

Stakeholders

Mitigation
Actions

PriestCommunity
Condephaat
Iphan
Tourists-Build aparticipatory
contingency
plan-Disater
Imagination
Game(DIG) andeducational
campaings
on DRR

Flood
Lanslide

Damagestocollections

Community
Condephaat
Iphan-Build aparticipatory
contingency
plan-DIG andeducational
campaings

Flood
Fire

Damagestocollections

Community
Tourists
NGO AmiIphan-Build aparticipatory
contingency
plan-DIG andeducational
campaings

Condephaat
Community
Iphan-Detailed risk
assessment;-Build aparticipatory
DRM plan;-Retroﬁtting
the houses-DIG andeducational
campaings

Flood

Damages
to buildings
andinhabitants

2.6 Fostering Resilience of Cultural Heritage Site of São Luiz do Paraitinga, Brazil

RISK ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE

Matriz Church (Latitude: 23°13'20.48"S; Longitude: 45°18'36.85"O)
Type ofattribute

Type ofmaterial

AssociatedvaluesImmovable
Tangible
Cultural

Organic
andinorganic

Religious
Architectural

Short-term

X

Social(Tourists,elderlypeople,youth)
Institutional(lack of plan)
Physical(objects)

Mid-term

X

Portable ﬂood
barriers
Disasterimagination gameand educational
campaings on DRR(including drills)

X

Risks

Flood

Damages tocollection,
tourists
and local
community
Matriz, 4 years after the ﬂood

Long-Term

Stakeholders

X

Regional Religious
Authority
Civil Protection
Rafting Angels
Local Community
Condephaat
Iphan
Tourists
University,
CemadenX

X

Hazard/threatX

Fig.4 Disaster risk management plan of Matriz Church

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

Mitigation
Measures
Build a participatory
contingency plan
- Early warning
system- Inventory;
Evacuation of
movable objects
to 2nd ﬂoor and, if
necessary, to 3rd- Rafting teamsupport (above 12
meters)Vulnerability

Condephaat,
Iphan
Civil Protection
PriestCivil Protection
Rafting Angels
Local Community
Tourists
University,
CemadenFig.5 Evacuation routes for cultural heritage sites during ﬂoods.

71Reference1) Agier, M. (2011) Antropologia da cidade: lugares, situações, movimentos, São Paulo.
2) Jigyasu, R., Murthy, M., Boccardi, G., Marrion, C., Douglas, D., King, J., OʼBrien, G., Dolcemascolo,G., Yongkyun, K., Albrito, P. (2013). Heritage and Resilience: Issues and Opportunities
for Reducing Disaster Risks, Mumbai.
3) Marchezini, V. (2015a). "The Biopolitics of Disaster: Power, Discourses, and Practices".
Human Organization, 74 (4), pp. 362‒371.
4) MARCHEZINI, V. (2015b), “Social Recovery in Disasters: the Cultural Resistance of Luizenses”,
in: M. Companion (ed.), Disaster's Impact on Livelihood and Cultural Survival: Losses, Opportunities,
and Mitigation, Boca Raton, Taylor and Francis Group.
5) Marchezini, V. & Trajber, R. (2016), "Youth-based learning in disaster risk reduction education:
Barriers and bridges to promote resilience", in M. Companion & M. Chaiken (eds.),
Responses to Disasters and Climate Change: Understanding Vulnerability and Fostering Resilience,
Boca Raton, Taylor and Francis Group.
6) Marchezini, V., Trajber, R., Olivato, D., Pereira, F., & Luz, A. (2017), "Participatory early warning systems:
youth, citizen science and intergenerational dialogues on disaster risk reduction in Brazil".
International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 8, 390 ‒ 401.
7) United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development ‒ Unhabitat. (2016).
Draft outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Housing
and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III), Geneva.
8) United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction - Unisdr. (2005). Hyogo framework
for action 2005-2015: building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. Geneva.
9) United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction - Unisdr. (2015). Sendai Frameworkfor Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva.

722.7 Disaster Risk Analysis in Town of Luang Prabang World Heritage Site,
Lao PDR
Virasith PHOMSOUVANH
Remote Sensing and Information Division, Natural Resources and Environment Research Institute,
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Lao PDR

1. Introduction
Luang Prabang is the ancient capital of Lan Xang ("one million elephants") and is one of the oldest cities in
Laos, founded approximately 1,200 years ago. Muang Sua was the old name of Luang Prabang following
its conquest in 698 CE. Its capital was Lane Xang Kingdom during the 13th to 16th centuries. The history of
Lao cultural heritage initiated in era of Lan Xang Kingdom in the thirteenth century. Lao cultural heritage
was divided into fourth periods: The original Lao cultural heritage as architecture of Lane Xang Kingdom(1353 ‒ 1695) established in the 14th century. In this period, Lao cultural heritage were influenced bynatural environmental and social culture; French colonial architecture (1983-1953) is the first phasefor changing Lao traditions, especially traditional architecture and life style. In this period, Lao cultural
heritage as traditional architecture and social culture have an inﬂuence from French style. In the second
phase of Lao cultural heritage (1953-1995), some traditional architecture has changing pattern inﬂuenced
by Soviet, China and American in this period. In the period (1995-present), the advent of Chinatanakhan
Mai (New Imagination) and the New Economic Mechanism (NEM), new oﬃce and apartments appeared
throughout the main city of Lao PDR.

Fig.1 View of the Luang Prabang World Heritage Site

At the same time, Luang Prabang is listed since 1995 by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site for uniquearchitectural, religious and cultural heritage, a blend of the rural and urban developments over several
centuries, including the French colonial inﬂuences during the 19th and 20th centuries. The popularity of73

the ubiquitous 'Greco-Roman Ranch' style building is high inﬂuenced by neighboring, especially Thailand.
This popularity has aﬀected the construction of Lao cultural heritage decreased steadily in major urban
centers.
With the Heritage Preservation and Development Master Plan (PSMV) regulation system, Luang Prabang
World Heritage site was divided into four main zones as shown in (Fig.2) including Safeguarded Zone
(Secteur sauvegardé ‒ ZPP-Ua, 67.12 ha); Protected Zone (Secteur protégé ‒ ZPP-Ub, 151.32 ha); Naturaland Landscape Zone (Secteur natural et paysager ‒ ZPP-N, 545.66 ha); and Monasteries (Secteur desMonastères ‒ ZPP-M, 16.43 ha). The site has a total of 611 buildings, 26 villages and 183 protected
wetlands were lists on the list of UNESCO heritage, consisting Lao traditional houses, major Buddhist
temples, French-inﬂuenced administration buildings, and Chinese-style shop houses.

Fig.2 View of the ZPP-Ua Zone

The ZPP‒Ub is located in the south of preserved zone, on the right banks of Nam Khane and Mekong
rivers. In the heritage protection zone, as the revision of Urban Regulation, the PSMV applies to diﬀerent
areas and notably to ZPP-Ub: Protected zone, established in one part of the town where monumental
and vernacular heritage is highly present. This revision of the Urban Regulation relates to the drawingof perimeter and regulatory provisions relating particularly to the ZPP-Ub. The ZPP-Ub is a residentialzone where equipment, commerce and service activities can be found along principal roads andsome secondary roads. The goal of the PSMV is to accompany evolution of this part of the town for its
harmonious development by improving its heritage buildings.

2. Outstanding Universal Value
Luang Prabang is an ancient town of Lao PDR, which are resourceful, intangible and tangible values. The
various remarkable values comprise colonial and traditional architecture, urban and natural landscapewith mountain, ponds and rivers. Furthermore, the city has numerous traditional customs, culture artsand handicrafts, language, food, rituals, festivals etc. According to these reasons, it was assigned in 1995
as the ﬁrst World Heritage City of Laos. The town of Luang Prabang was entered onto the UNESCO World
Heritage registry on the basis of three of the ten criteria for selecting cultural sites. The OUV criteria for
Luang Prabang World Heritage site is as following:74

2.7 Disaster Risk Analysis in Town of Luang Prabang World Heritage Site, Lao PDR“ ii) to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a culturalarea of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, townplanning or landscape design.
iv) to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensembleor landscape which illustrates (a) signiﬁcant stage(s) in human history.
vi) to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use whichis representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment
especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change”.

3. Attributes and Values
According to ICOMOS, 1995 stated that: “Luang Prabang is outstanding by virtue of both its rich
Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participantsarchitectural and artistic heritage and also its special urban development, first on traditional oriental
lines and then in conjunction with European colonial inﬂuences. This is uniquely expressed in the overall
urban fabric of the town. It may therefore be considered to be a unique combination of a diversity ofcommunities ‒ rural and urban, royal and religious ‒ within a deﬁned geographical area”.
Here are some attributes and values of major place in the Luang Prabang World Heritage site based on
the Heritage Preservation and Development Master Plan under UNESCOʼs OUV criteria as shown in Fig.3
below.

Fig.3 Summarizes the involvement between these attributes, their values75

4. Hazards and Vulnerabilities
Luang Prabang has a historical background of hazards with respect to earthquakes and might ﬁres in thisregion. As the location is nearby happening earthquake, so it is vulnerable in its natural and is able simply
to be aﬀected due to shaking of the land. The earthquake is main cause of the ﬁre in this area. The ﬁrerisk in the site is also a treat due to the density of traditional house and building in ZPP-Ua zone of Luang
Prabang World heritage site as following.

Fig.4 Hazards, Vulnerabilities and their Impacts

4.1 Earthquake

The most expected hazard is earthquake, so the region is sited near an earthquake zone. Even if thefrequency of earthquakes in this region, a signiﬁcant seismic activity has been observed as a reported on“https://earthquaketrack.com/p/laos/louangphabang/recent” based on the website on Earthquake Trackas shown in Fig.5, Therefore, the Town of Luang Prabang has an inﬂuence of the earthquake risk in the
future.

762.7 Disaster Risk Analysis in Town of Luang Prabang World Heritage Site, Lao PDR

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

Fig.5 Statistics on Earthquake Risk surround the Town of Luang Prabang.

4.2 Fire

The history refers to the number of ﬁres initiated within an area in the past as reported “http://www.adpc.
net/v2007/Programs/UDRM/INFORMATION%20RESOURCES/AUDMP/Default.asp”. The site, where are
known to have been particularly prone to outbreaks of ﬁre due to natural or manmade causes, have been
considered in mapping as having high degree of Fire hazard as shown in Fig.6

Fig.6 Fire Risk Map in the Town of Luang Prabang.

5. Earthquake Scenario
In earthquake scenario, the shaking land has occurred somewhere near the Town of Luang Prabang inearly morning due to its geographical location has some history with more than magnitude 6. There is
not any prediction by the Department of Meteorology and Hydrology. So, local residents and visitors are
sleeping, earthquakes with more than magnitude 6 happened nearing the city center. With a majorityof location exposed to high risks aﬃliated with collapsing in core zone of cultural heritage with a lot ofdamage from collapsing buildings and traditional houses as shown in Fig.7. The earthquakeʼs event ismajor cause of ﬁre occurrence along the Town of Luang Prabang extremely vulnerable and aﬀecting theattribute and value of cultural heritage, for instance the Buddhist Stupa including artifacts inside temples,building of National Museum and also public building and traditional house.

77Fig.7 Schematic Diagram with Disaster Risk Map

6. Preparedness and Response
The National risk profile for Lao PDR (ADPC, 2010) states that the country is prone to multiple hazards
mainly ﬂoods, drought, storms, landslides, earthquakes and epidemics with speciﬁc degrees of severity indiﬀerent regions. Amongst those hazards, ﬂooding from storms has been the main natural hazard and has
led to both economic and social losses. The natural hazards have brought negative impacts to vulnerable
people living in hazard prone areas, particularly those aﬀected by poverty. Hazards have also resulted indamage to houses, irrigation systems, bridges, roads, agricultural areas, etc. According to declared by Lao
National Assessment that disaster risk reduction in 2012 is the key output of the implementation of the
project “Strengthen Institutional Capacity for Development of Lao National Assessment Report (LAR-2012)
on Disaster Risk Reduction in Lao PDR”. Additional to the Disaster Prevention and Control Committees(DPCCs) at national, provincial, district and villages have been established under the Prime Minister Decree
No. 220/PM, dated 28 August 2013 to look after DRM issues in Lao PDR. As the mentioned above, thepreparedness and response are following methods:
・Create District Disaster Management Committee (DDMC) at all districts and future at villages (Village
Protection Unit- VPU).
・Carry on training program for PDMC, DDMC and VPU with identifying the role and responsibility
along with plan of those Organizations.
・Improve and establish information network and data bank of disaster involved resources of Labor andSocial Welfare, Agriculture and Forestry, Public Health, Transport, Education, Lao Red Cross Society
and others with Information Unit of NDMO as Contact Point.
・Improve synoptic weather forecasting of disasters, generating information dissemination network tocommunity via media and other means with Department of Hydrology- Meteorology Dept and
NDMO are as Organizers.
・Develop as required specialized teams, for instance search and rescue, relief with using resources of
military, police, school and Lao Red Cross Society Volunteer in whole provinces.
・Work together with provinces and sectors related ﬁnding place for future building an emergency
storage which accordant with existing capability, NDMO is responsible for looking for land plot,78

2.7 Disaster Risk Analysis in Town of Luang Prabang World Heritage Site, Lao PDR

MLSW is responsible for establishing plan.
・Started up projects on integrating DM concept and environmental protection into primary school
curricular by Ministry of Education as the lead shepherd.
・Work together with sectors as agriculture, health, education and rural development on DM activities
in high risk to disaster region.
・Eﬀectively employ government distributed budget with expanding mobilization of resource
assistance from charity, internal country and outside for emergency assistance and relief for disastervictims.
・Create information network and units, develop disaster risk map of Lao PDR.
・Further use man power and resources of national defense, public security for search and rescue workin countrywide with collaboration of locals and involved agencies, ﬁnding further cooperation with
Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

ASEAN partners and region.
・Establishing public awareness, education campaign and program on DM though public media.

7. Recovering Planning
As it declared in Strategic Plan on Disaster Risk Management in Lao PDR 2020, some factors are required
to international community for having new approach and methods to deal with pre-disaster, minimize
damages and losses, especially recovery post-disaster as well. Parallel with that, the government of Lao
PDR is also build up its strategy on disaster management with the selected implementation approaches
based on short and long term redevelopment as follow:
・Continue building a Disaster Management Institution from centre to village levels based on the
Government Decree N. 158/PM dated 23 August 1999.
・Establish focal points and build DRM coordination procedures to unity working toward government
plan on socio-economic development.
・Building and improve codes and regulations on DRM.
・Building early warning systems, system for eﬀective information collection throughout country,
granting for community to timely receiving basic needed information and be able to eﬀectively
taking appropriate measures in dealing with disaster when it strike.
・Build stockpiling system with basic needed goods within country in 3 parts and provinces foreﬀectively providing relief to the victims and mitigation in post disaster period.
・Organizing public education activities for community with explaining real courses of disasters and it
impact.
・Organizing wider training work for governments and privates on DRM by Lao trainers and outside
experts.

8. Conclusion
The study on Natural Disaster Impact on Cultural Heritage in Town of Luang Prabang World Heritage
site, Lao PDR illustrates that disaster risk assessment is most important for cultural heritage, especiallyalong the site attributes and values. The disaster risk management plan has to be organized andimplemented urgently. In Luang Prabang World Heritage site, it is signiﬁcant to establish line agencies,
for instance Disaster Prevention and Control Committee (DPCC) for disaster risk management based on
improving regulations and methodologies for disaster risk reduction and strengthen cooperation among79

organizations. Every interested party requires to be related to generation of Disaster Risk Management
Plan for the Luang Prabang World Heritage site by forget local communities and their signiﬁcance androle in maintenance of cultural heritage.

Reference
1) Organisation, C.: Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
Paris, 2008.
2) National Disaster Management Committee (NDMC): Report on Developing National Risk Proﬁle of Lao
PDR, 2010,https://www.adpc.net/igo/category/ID275/doc/2013-sWNa61-ADPC-Final̲Report̲Part1.pdf
3) LuangPrabang World Heritage City, Regulation of ZPP-Ub Zone, Heritage Preservation andDevelopment Master Plan,
http://www.luangprabang-heritage.org/images/regulation/document/English/regulation̲ZPP̲Ub̲
En.pdf4) Earthquake Track, Todayʼs Earthquakes, https://earthquaketrack.com/p/laos/louangphabang/recent
5) ADPC, Lao Urban Fire Risk Assessment Mapping in LuangPrabang City, Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation,
2007.
6) Center for Excellence (CFE), Lao PDR Country Overview: Lao PDR Disaster Management Reference
Handbook, Center for Excellence in Disaster Management & Humanitarian Assistance 2014.

80

2.8 Sri Pratap Singh Museum, Lal Mandi, India

Sayma Iqbal
INTACH, Kashmir Chapter, India

1. Introduction
Kashmir has been historically known
as one of the oldest habitations in Asia,
having the distinction of a recorded
and documented history of 5000 years.
However, it was only towards the endof the 19th century that historical sites,
habitations and artifacts came to berecognised as the representative cultural
treasures of this civilization. During

Fig.1 Photo from the 1905-06 showing SPS museum building standing proud

the later part of 19th Century, that a within its own premise with no development around source: 'The romantic East
memorandum was submitted to the thenBurma, Assam, & Kashmir' (1906) by Walter Del Mar)

Dogra ruler of the Jammu & Kashmir State, Mahraja Pratap Singh, for setting up of a museum in Srinagar
that would house exhibits and artifacts covering the region of Jammu, Kashmir, Baltistan and Gilgit. The
memorandum was submitted in March, 1898, to the Mahraja by his younger brother General Raja Sir Amar
Singh and a European scholar Captain S.H Godmerry and a museum was set up in an existing building
belonging to the state at Lal Mandi, Srinagar on the left bank of the river Jhelum.

2. Location and Context
The case study SPS Museum building is located at Lal Mandion the left bank of the Jhelum River. The building lies in theheart of Srinagar city. A suspension bridge provides easy
access for pedestrians who want to reach the Lal Mandi- Raj
Bagh area from Lal Chowk ‒ the main commercial centreof Srinagar, across the river on the right bank. Set within asprawling garden which also houses many mature chinar
trees, the building was earlier accessed from a small gate on
the north-western corner which opened onto a pavement.
Within the same premises a substantial new museum building
has also been recently constructed and the present entry is
Fig.2 Map of Jammu and Kashmir, locating Kashmir
Valley and Srinagar (source: Aertgeert, Koen)

common to both the recently constructed new museum andthe old SPS museum.

Srinagar city, where the case study site is located is part of the Kashmir Valley which is enfolded by the lofty
mountain ranges of the Inner Himalayas, delineating in the southeast-northwest direction; that makes it
a transverse, oval-shaped valley. The length of the Valley is about 84 miles and the breadth is about 25
miles (in its centre), encompassing an area of 1900 sq.miles. The average altitude of the Valley is about815200ft and it is majorly drained by the River Jhelum
and its various tributaries. Surrounded by an almost
unbroken chain of mountains ‒ highest of which
attain an elevation of more than 18000ft, the region
affords only one exit to River Jhelum ‒ its principal
feeder ‒ in Baramulla located northwest of the Valley.
The topography of Kashmir Valley is deﬁned by threephysiographic divisions ‒ the mountainous region of
Pir Panjal and Great Himalayas, the lacustrine deposits

Case study
Fig.3 Map of Kashmir Valley, locating Srinagar and the Jhelum River

of karewa1 , and the Jhelum Valley Floor (Taali, 2011). (source: Aertgeert, Koen)

The ﬂat tract of the region, which is geologically termed as the “Jhelum Valley Floor” is part of the Upper
Jhelum Catchment.

ᵭᶊᶂ ᵱᵮᵱ ᵫᶓᶑᶃᶓᶋ
ᵠᶓᶇᶊᶂᶇᶌᶅᵬᶃᶕ ᵱᵮᵱ ᵫᶓᶑᶃᶓᶋ
ᵠᶓᶇᶊᶂᶇᶌᶅ

Fig. 4 Overall site situation of the old SPS Museum and other development
around it (source: Google Maps).

3. Attributes
3.1 Building

Fig. 5 Proposed views after restoration of the Museum (source: Intach,Kashmir)

1

Fig. 6 Present state of the Museum building

The word Karewa in Kashmiri dialect means, “elevated table-land.” This term was ﬁrst used by Godwin-Austin (1859) and later

by Lydekker (1878) for an unconsolidated to semi ‒ consolidated sand-clay-conglomerate sequence (http://www.dghindia.
org/)

82

2.8 Sri Pratap Singh Museum, Lal Mandi, India

The SPS museum building with its cuboidal building
volume and gently rising stepped pyramidal roof
having a square pavilion at the centre is suggestiveof the local Kashmiri shrine architecture. The spatiallayout of the museum building is based on a squareplan, with linear galleries serving as extended
porches on all four sides. This basic almost squarelayout is in turn divided into nine bays with a large
central square bay measuring 91ft x 82 ft surroundedby linear outer bays around 20ft wide. These linear
bays or galleries which formerly served as open
Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

wooden arcaded porticos are juxtaposed with squarerooms at the corners that were originally designed
as two storey blocks. These galleries have now been Fig. 7 Present state of the Museum building
incorporated within the building to provide extra
display space.
3.2 Decorative Architectural Elements: Papier mache ceiling and wall murals
1.

The internal walls of the main bay of the museum building are covered with decorative painted
frescos and plaster frescos. The building ceiling also comprises beautiful papier mache panels. No
step has been taken for the preservation of these decorative architectural features so far.

2.

The building ceiling comprises decorative papier mache ceiling panels in most of the rooms.

3.

The panels in the central portion of the building on the other hand depict some of the best ceiling

4.

The mellowed luster of these panels is highly alluring for the viewer even today, after a passage ofdesign based on the shawl tarah (paisley motif).
more than a hundred years.

833.3 Decorative Arts

While most of the museum collections have been moved to the new museum, built within the same
premises, the old museum still consists of the following collections. The remaining collections are bothorganic and inorganic in nature:-- Sculptures ‒ stone, metal artifacts (bronze), terracotta tiles and clay.
-- Painting Gallery ‒ miniature and oil painting.
-- Textile Gallery ‒ Shawls and some carpets.
-- Anthropology/Natural History ‒ Birds, Animals and insects stuﬀed.
-- Numismatic ‒ Gallery-Gold, Silver and Copper coins.
-- Mineral Gallery ‒ Stone, minerals and clay models.

4. Hazard Map Assessment of Case Study
4.1 History of Floods and Fires in Kashmir84

2.8 Sri Pratap Singh Museum, Lal Mandi, India

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

While the presence of timber within the
structural and non-structural system ofKashmiri buildings proved eﬀective during
earthquakes, the same material put thebuildings at severe risk during incidents
of fire. Between 550 and 1935 AD, there
have been at least 19 recorded outbreaksof fire in Srinagar city which wipedaway large portions of historic mohallas(neighbourhoods).
Floods have ravaged the Valley since earlytimes. Between 1900 and 1965 AD, atleast 15 major ﬂoods have been recorded.
Considering that most traditional/historicbuildings in Kashmir had mud brick, mortar
and render as an essential feature, apartfrom wood (which is prone to rotting on
prolonged exposure to moisture or water),Fig. 8 Table illustrating the history of ﬂoods in Kashmir (source: Intach, Kashmir)

the built stock would invariably be aﬀectedin the event of a flood which either did
immediate or long term damage to thebuilding.
85

4.2 Probability of the Museum being impacted by a Hazard

Based on the assessment of Hazard Maps and history of disasters in the Kashmir Valley, where the casestudy is located, the probability of the Museum being aﬀected by a potential disaster is as under:

Fig. 94.3 Hazard Vulnerability and Consequential Impact on SPS Museum

Fig. 1086

2.8 Sri Pratap Singh Museum, Lal Mandi, India

4.4 Site Situation and Site-speciﬁc Hazards

Growing unregulated urban pressure around the site, especially after the floods of 2014 poses severerisks to the site. Post flood, most damaged houses were rebuilt, the owners (out of paranoia) wanted
to go higher ‒ and have raised the level of their compounds. Most owners have signiﬁcantly increased
the height of the plinths (some to 5ʼ-6”) so over all height increases to 7ft ‒ putting pressure on the SPS
Museum

5. Risk Assessment and Risk Scenario

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participantsḛᵧᶌᶁᶃᶑᶑᵿᶌᶒᴾ ᶐᵿᶇᶌᶑᴾ ᶕᶇᶒᶆᴾ ᶅᶊᵿᶁᶇᶃᶐᴾᶋᶃᶊᶒᵋᶍᶄᶄᶑᴾ ᶆᵿᶑᴾ ᶁᵿᶓᶑᶃᶂᴾ ᶊᵿᶐᶅᶃᵋᶑᶁᵿᶊᶃᴾᶇᶌᶓᶌᶂᵿᶒᶇᶍᶌᴾ ᶍᶄᴾ ᵩᵿᶑᶆᶋᶇᶐᴾ ᵴᵿᶊᶊᶃᶗᵊᴾᵿᶄᶄᶃᶁᶒᶇᶌᶅᴾᶋᶍᶑᶒᴾᶊᶍᶕᵋᶊᶗᶇᶌᶅᴾᵿᶐᶃᵿᶑᴾᵿᶌᶂᴾᶁᵿᶓᶑᶇᶌᶅᴾᵿᴾᶆᶓᶋᵿᶌᶇᶒᵿᶐᶇᵿᶌᴾᶁᶐᶇᶑᶃᶑᴾᶕᶇᶒᶆᴾ
ᶋᵿᶌᶗᴾᶆᶃᶐᶇᶒᵿᶅᶃᴾᶑᶇᶒᶃᶑᴾᶀᶃᶇᶌᶅᴾᵿᶄᶄᶃᶁᶒᶃᶂᵊᴾᶕᶍᶐᶑᶒᴾ ᵿᶋᶍᶌᶅᴾ ᶕᶆᶇᶁᶆᴾ ᶇᶑᴾ ᶒᶆᶃᴾ ᵱᵮᵱᴾᵫᶓᶑᶃᶓᶋᵌḜ

Fig. 11ᵪᶃᶄᶒᵘᴾᵤᶊᶍᶍᶂᴾᶍᶄᴾᵐᵎᵏᵒᵱᵿᶒᶃᶊᶊᶇᶒᶃᴾᵫᵿᶎᶑᴾᶑᶆᶍᶕᶇᶌᶅᴾᶒᶆᶃᴾᵪᵿᶊᴾᵫᵿᶌᶂᶇᴾᵿᶐᶃᵿᴾᶕᶆᶃᶐᶃᴾᶒᶆᶃᴾᶁᵿᶑᶃᴾᶑᶒᶓᶂᶗᴾᶇᶑᴾᶊᶍᶁᵿᶒᶃᶂ

Post flood, the museum has been abandoned andcurrently in disuse with only natural history specimens
and some paintings and sculptures still there. A newreuse proposal for the old SPS Museum is currently
Fig. 12 Flood of 2014

underway.

87Fig. 13 Damage to objects and Building from September 2014 ﬂoods

6. Internal Institutional Capacities
The museum remains open throughout the year for six days aweek. Presently the museum remains closed on Mondays. The
museum normally remains open from 10 in the morning till 4 inthe evening, during summer months. The winter timing is 10.30
to 4.30. The internal maintenance of the museum is looked after
by the Department of Archives, Archaeology and Museums.

The external façade of the building is maintained by the Public
Works Department (PWD).

Fig. 1488

2.8 Sri Pratap Singh Museum, Lal Mandi, India

7. Preventive and Mitigation Strategy
Two Level Flooding has been considered for the preparation of Prevention and Mitigation Strategy:
LEVEL 1: SHALLOW FLOODING TO A HEIGHT OF 2ft (with continuous rain)
Note: “Considering that most collections have been moved to the new museum (in proximity to the oldone), priority will be given to the building instead of collections as collections wonʼt be much aﬀected.
Since the museum site is itself lower than the area around it, ﬂooding from the neighborhood will pose
greater threat.”

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

Fig. 1589

LEVEL 2: DEEP FLOODING DUE TO JHELUM RIVER OVERFLOW
Preventive measures for a potential major ﬂood disaster will require a multi pronged strategy.

Fig. 16

4.5 Mitigation Strategy

Fig. 1790

2.8 Sri Pratap Singh Museum, Lal Mandi, India

Note: Just as the ﬁrst *Flood Alert* is sounded, the museum should be closed to public and staﬀ put onhigh alert with some members on 24 hr, rotational monitoring duty. If the river starts ﬂooding, the objects
should be prescriptively evacuated to the upper, storage spaces of the new Museum.

Recovery Strategy

PILOT PROJECTIDENTIFICATION
Documentation, inventory

and mapping of collections
on display and in storage

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participantsin the New Sri Pratap Singh
MuseumObjective: This pilot projectwill inform the preparation of
the DRM for collections in the
New Museum to see where
major lacuna exists and what
risks and hazards they may be exposed to before a detailed Risk Assessment, Recovery and Rehabilitation
Plan can be proposed for the Museum collections. Also undertake a detailed assessment of the movable
objects that got damaged in 2014 ﬂoods.
Need: A preliminary survey carried out post 2014 ﬂoods in Kashmir estimated a damage of approximately
60-70 percent of artifacts, among which the most badly damaged were the manuscripts, wooden objects,
and decorative items made papier mache and textiles like antique shawls, carpets of silk, woolens,terracotta tiles and tablets from Buddhist period, metal-based archaeological objects. The prolonged
exposure to silt, mud and contaminated water has seriously impacted these organic objects. In theabsence of any preparedness or response mechanism in place, a lot of irreplaceable damage was incurredon the Museum collections.
Expected Outcome: Revival of the lost/damaged objects through some form of interpretation,
documentation or conservation.

91

References
Published, Unpublished Works:
1) Aertgeerts, Koen, Urban Revitalization of the Jhelum Riverfront in Srinagar A socio-Cultural approach for
Urban Revitalization, Dissertation, 2001
2) Cultural Heritage and Natural Disasters Risk Preparedness and the Limits of Prevention, ICOMOS, 2007
3) Draft Master Plan-Greater Baramula-2027, Town Planning Organisation, Kashmir, 2011
4) Hilal Ahmad Ganaie, et al., Delineation of Flood Prone Area using Normalized Diﬀerence Water Index(NDWI) and Transect Method: A Case Study of Kashmir Valley, International Journal of Remote Sensing
Applications Volume 3 Issue 2, 2013
5) Research Report on Disaster Risk Management of Vernacular Heritage in Kashmir, INTACH, J&K Chapter
for Ritsumeikan University, Japan, 2006
6) September 2014, Kashmir Floods, Cultural Heritage Damage Assessment Mission, Prince Claus Fund,
INTACH, Kashmir Chapter, 20147) Conservation and Reuse Proposal for the old SPS Museum Building, INTACH, Kashmir Chapter, June
2016

92

2.9 Implementation of Disaster Risk Management for the "Zoothèque" atthe National Museum of Natural History, Paris
Bertrand Lavédrine
Centre de Recherche sur la Conservation, France

1. Introduction
The institution

The National Museum of Natural History(MNHN) is a French institution for researchand the dissemination of scientific culture.
It is one of the first world establishmentsof this type, inheriting the Royal Gardenof medicinal plants founded in 1626. The
MNHN has five missions: the conservationof scientific collections, the disseminationof scientiﬁc culture in the specialties of theinstitution, research, teaching and training,and scientific expertise. In the centre of
Paris, it encompasses eight galleries, one
library, a zoo, gardens and greenhouses
spread over 25.7 ha along the Seine
River (Fig.1). The museum's collections ofspecimens are a heritage for humanity,
as they are essential for understanding
biodiversity. The museum houses around 68
million specimens that are available to all

Fig.1: Administrative bundaries and core zone of the National Museum of
Natural History (Paris, France). © MNHN

researchers. To store some of the zoologicalcollections that are not exhibited, a newbuilding was inaugurated in 1986 (Fig.2). This storage facility, called the "Zoothèque", is the subject of thisdisaster risk management (DRM) study, which aims to implement the best preservation of the value of thisheritage asset using the available resources.

Context: core, attributes and values

The Zoothèque is an underground storage facility that is home to thousands of the museum's birds,
mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fishes. Located on the premises of the MNHN, in Paris (48.842323,
2.357097), it houses 8 million specimens, or 20,000 m3 of various artefacts, stored on 40 km of Compactus
shelves over three levels (Fig.3, 4). The items consist of stuﬀed specimens (dry), a wet collection (specimens
in alcohol or formaldehyde) and a collection of "type" references for scientists (Fig.5, 6). These collections
are at the basis of the classificatory analysis that rationalizes nature and man, and leads to phylogeny,
that is to say, the evolutionary history of life. They also serve as the subject of research in the areas of the93natural sciences and reference for the expertise of the inventory of the diversity. Besides the scientificvalue for the academic community, this collection has a historical value due its provenance, as well as an
educational value for the public at large.

Fig.2: Construction of the zoothèque in 1981. © MNHN - Bernard Faye

Fig.3: Map of level (-1) of the zoothèque. © MNHN

94

2.9 Implementation of Disaster Risk Management for the "Zoothèque" at the National Museum of Natural History, Paris

Fig.5: View of mobile shelving with stuﬀ specimens. © MNHN - Bernard
Faye

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

Fig.4: View of mobile shelving with stuﬀ specimens. © MNHN - Bernard Faye

Fig.6: View of mobile shelving with ﬂuid preserved specimens. ©
MNHN - Bernard Faye

2. Risk Assessment

Threats and vulnerability

The Zoothèque is in a flood zone, 200 meters from the river. In case of flood, basements of theneighbourhood will be flooded first. The water will infiltrate either from the top of the Zoothèque, orby rising in the drains, and will then stagnate in the building. The collections that are stored there areparticularly vulnerable. The specimens are made of organic materials (such as feathers and fur), which
will be seriously damaged by the water; moreover, they will release the toxic products (such as salts ofmercury and arsenic) that were used as pesticides until the early 20th century when stuﬃng specimens.
If ﬂooding occurs, the jars ﬁlled with specimens stored in alcohol and formaldehyde will ﬂoat, lose theirtags, shock to each other, break and lead to the loss of specimens and the release of formaldehyde, acarcinogenic substance. Another problem that has already been identiﬁed for a neighbouring buildingof the museum is the collapse following a subsidence of the land. Thanks to the underground situation,
the storing beneﬁts of a great thermal inertia but this has the disadvantage of leading to high humidity
due to water inﬁltration. As a result, the collections have been regularly subject to fungal contaminations.
The problem is ampliﬁed by the presence of Compactus shelves that create containment and facilitatescross-contamination carried by excess dust. Air conditioning maintains a stable temperature but does
not control the humidity. Finally, it should be noted that there is a substantial reserve of alcohol (600
liters) used by the scientists that could amplify or promote a ﬁre. It should also be noted that there are95

no permanent staff on the site, and there is a lack of awareness among the various actors, lack of an
emergency plan, and lack of training for emergency interventions with the staﬀ of the institution.

Tangible and intangible impact

Such events would lead to the damage or even the loss of unique or historical specimens, resulting
in an impoverishment of the collections. Scientists would lose not only a source of reference for
their studies on the living, the study of biodiversity, and evolution, but the impoverishment ofcollections could lead to a decrease in the number of visitors and the associated revenues for the
institution.
Risk analysis and evaluation

By representing the hazards according to their probability and the impact on the collections, we
can establish a matrix that will make it possible to prioritize the actions (Fig. 7).
Likelyhood
Almost certain (4)

4

8

12

16

Likely (3)3

DUST/MOULDS
6

9

FLOOD
12

Possible (2)2

PHYSICALFORCES
4

6

FIRE
8

Unlikely (1)12CAVING
3

4

Moderate (1)Minor (2)Major (3)Severe (4)ImpactFig.7: Risk matrix and magnitude of risks.

The risk of collapse is unlikely as the building is underground and build following recent
standards. The same is true for mechanical damage: the artefacts are barely handled and stored
stably on the shelves. These risks, with a magnitude of less than 5, are currently accepted. Mould
and ﬁre are signiﬁcant risks (5 to 8) that should be reduced. The temperature is controlled andmaintained at a constant temperature of 16°C to ensure optimum conservation of the specimens;
however, the constant excessive humidity level induces mould infestations. The museum has
already begun procedures to clean the atmosphere of this building to reduce moisture andbiocontaminant load. The presence of a signiﬁcant quantity of alcohol is subject to the control
of authority external to the establishment. The building is equipped with a ﬁre detection system.
Fire extinguishers are present on the premises and a security team is permanently present nearby.
The hazard that induces a high magnitude of risk (greater than 9), and that should be urgently
reduced, is ﬂooding.

962.9 Implementation of Disaster Risk Management for the "Zoothèque" at the National Museum of Natural History, Paris

Past history hazard and worst scenario

A ﬂood of the Seine occurred in 1910, and various parts of the MNHN were aﬀected. In 2016, theSeine reached a critical level without leading to a ﬂood of the museum. However, Paris and its
region expect a 100-year ﬂood of the Seine. Indeed, even though retention basins have been built
around the city, their eﬃciency decreases with the increased urbanization of Paris and its region.
The worst-case scenario may then be considered: when the level of the river reaches a criticalpoint (predeﬁned by the civil security), the alert will be given and museums in Paris will start toapply emergency measures. In less than 24 hours, the garden will be ﬂooded. The museum staﬀ
will start to protect the sensitive objects and materials in the other museum galleries or movethem to the upper ﬂoors. Specialized staﬀ will transfer animals from the zoo. In the meantime,
Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

the water will penetrate the lower levels and flood the Zoothèque. It will be difficult if not
impossible for safety reasons (chemicals, low air quality, lighting) to intervene in the storage
facility. Furthermore, the ability to open the Compactus shelves might be compromised. If it is notpossible to avoid a river ﬂood, the impact should be reduced by preventive measures.

3. Risk Prevention and Mitigation

Evaluation of the disaster management system

The building is only 20 years old and it adheres to the recent safety standards for people. There is abasic maintenance and monitoring of the building. The building and its contents have been declared
to the local safety authority because a signiﬁcant quantity of ﬂammable liquid (ethanol) is stored on thepremises. There are regular inspections, in particular for smoke detectors, which are connected to thesecurity office. A team of firefighters is permanently at the MNHN and ready to act if there is an alert.
However, there are no permanent staﬀ within the building, no ﬂooding alert system, no evacuation planfor the collection, no ﬁrst aid kit and no emergency power supply. In addition, these public collections are
not insured.

Disaster risk mitigation plan・Avoiding:

The best option would be to move the whole collection to a safer location. The reallocation of this storage
for another collection less water-sensitive (minerals, fossils, etc.) make sense; however, this seem diﬃcult
to achieve in the short term for ﬁnancial reasons. Cheaper options would be to focus only on the mostsensitive or most valuable specimens (the “type” references) that could be transferred to a safer place
or at least to higher levels in the storage. This would mean rearranging the storage that has been madefollowing a rational scientiﬁc organization.

・Blocking:In case of a ﬂood, it will be important to buy time to keep the water out as long as possible. The installationof a pump with a power generator will help to remove some water at the early stage of the ﬂooding.

・Detecting:A water detection system connected to the security oﬃce should be installed.
97・Reducing:

In order to reduce the impact of a flood, it is necessary to list the most valuable specimens to be
evacuated in order of priority. This should be posted on the door of each room and on the Compactus
shelves to be able to ﬁnd them in an emergency situation. A mapping system to locate these artefacts
has to be established and kept at both the security oﬃce and the building itself. Regarding the jars that
store specimens in liquid, it would be worth studying the possibility of using plastic waterproof bags orcontainers as well as techniques to keep them stable and protected on their shelves during a ﬂood.

・Building on the 2016 alert:

For the entire site, the priority is to increase competences and staﬀ involvement. This could be achieved byﬁrst recruiting a DRM coordinator and developing an emergency plan, an emergency response team anda reverse-planning scenario based on the lapse of time before the building ﬂoods when the river reaches
a critical level. It is necessary to contact the ﬁreﬁghters for access and safety in the building before andduring a ﬂood, and to discuss with them and the civil protection about safety issues (e.g. toxic chemicals)in case of a ﬂood. Among the stakeholders, residents, volunteers and museum supporters could be trained
and listed for ﬁrst aid in case the need arises.

・Retroﬁtting:

Keeping the water out of the building or out of the storage rooms looks diﬃcult to achieve considering
the underground location of the building, but it is worth estimating the range of techniques that could
make such a space (building or room) waterproof for a period of time by delaying water infiltration
through drains and access points.

4. Emergency Preparedness: Response and First Aid
In order to prepare responses when facing a disaster, all information about the collection (the mostvaluable items, a priority list) will be stored in a safe place. A list of volunteers (a rescue team) and an
alerting system need to be establish and stay updated through regular contact. An evacuation procedure
has to be set and tested through drills. Shelters for the storage of artefacts in good condition and anotherfor those damaged after a disaster have to be located. Specialized conservators have to be identiﬁed.
Response

In case of an alert, when the river reaches a critical level, the MNHN site will be closed to the public. This
information will be spread through proper channels of communication to alert police, firefighters, therescue team and the public. The president of the museum will launch the rescue and start to evacuate thecollection in order of priority.
When the water ﬂoods the building, for safety reasons, there will be no access to the Zoothèque but thecollection recovery will be prepared by contacting/organizing the rescue team, assessing the shelter andchecking the supplies.

982.9 Implementation of Disaster Risk Management for the "Zoothèque" at the National Museum of Natural History, Paris

RecoveryAfter the ﬂood, the ﬁreﬁghters will remove the water from the building with an eﬃcient pumping system.
As soon as the building is secured, the trained staﬀ will assess the damage, the losses and the needs. The
ﬂooded collection will then be evacuated for air drying in a ventilated place (shelter). Its evaluation forconservation measures will be conducted using appropriate methods. Priority for conservation treatment
will be established and a campaign for funding launched through media channels. The empty building
will then dried by blowing warm dry air in it.

5. Conclusion
As a general conclusion, and for the ﬁrst steps in order to improve the DRM in the short term, it would
be advisable to recruit a coordinator for this activity with the task of establishing an evacuation plan
Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

and team, in order to identify the more valuable items and the strategy for saving them (and gathering
this data in a safe but accessible place). This includes locating and ﬂagging the most valuable artefacts,
identifying shelters, and so on. In the medium term, an emergency team will be constituted and trained
together with the museum staff to coordinate emergency procedures and to train other staff andvolunteers. This will include evacuation drills and procedures for salvage. In the long term (5‒10 years),
it is expected that the collection will be moved to a safer place if it is impossible to make the storage
waterproof. A study should be devoted to the methods of drying stuﬀed specimens after a ﬂood. It would
be advisable to increase the awareness of the museum staﬀ and the public at large through a conference
on climate change and its impact on cultural heritage.

Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Laurent Defendini of the Mnhn for his help and the Institute of Disaster
Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH), Iccrom and UNESCO Chair
Programme on Cultural Heritage and Risk Management992.10 Archaeological Site of Paestum, Salerno Province,
Salerno Province, Italy
Domenico Greco
Young researcher at Salerno University (Italy), ICOMOS Italia member, Italy

Fig.1 Archaeological Site of Paestum

1. Introduction
The Archaeological Park of Paestum is included in the “Cilento and Vallo di Diano National Park”, World
Heritage Site since 1998. Cilento is a cultural landscape of outstanding value and it has evidence of humanoccupation from 250,000 years ago. The park incorporate greek temples, roman remains and a museum.
The three greek temples of Paestum, built between VI and V sec. BC, are together with those of Athens andAgrigento the best preserved templar buildings from the classical age. Since the '700 the site has attracted
travelers and artists such as Piranesi and Goethe. The construction of the temples began a few decades
after the founding of the city of Paestum, which was originally called Poseidonia, around 600 BC. Settlers
from the city of Sibari (Calabria) settled in the south of the Sele River, near the Etruscans of Pontecagnano
in the North and the indigenous peoples who lived in the mountains in the East. The temples are locatedin the central part of the city, extending over 120 hectares and surrounded by a city wall, which is also
among the best preserved we know. Among the temples there was the "market", that is the central square
where the assemblies were held and the tomb (empty, in reality) of the mythical founder of Paestum wasworshiped.
Around the temples and the market stretched the housing quarters. The remains of homes, spas andshops that can be seen on the site date back mostly to the imperial age (I-V century BC), while we still
ignore many aspects of the greek hamlet.
The earliest evidence of the greek settlement was found in the urban sanctuaries, in the tombs locatedoutside the walls and in the sanctuary of Hera Argiva at the mouth of the Sele, about 9 km from Paestum.
In the second half of the 5th century. BC, the city is conquered by Italic, non-greek people (called Lucani
from some sources); both the language (from Greek to c.d. Osco) and material culture and funeral rites
changed. There are, however, elements of continuity, such as the continuation of the function of temples.
In 273 BC there is a new incisive change: following a roman expansion, a latin colony was being set up100

2.10 Archaeological Site of Paestum, Salerno Province, Italy

at Paestum. From now on, Paestum is among the many "Roman" cities of the peninsula. Around the 1st
century BC, the residential districts were probably very similar to those of Pompeii and Herculaneum, kept
under Vesuvius lapils.
This paper focuses on risk assessment, mitigation measures, response and recovery mechanisms for thisarchaeological site in case of disaster (natural or human-induced).

2. Introduction
The Archaeological Site of Paestum is part of “Cilento and Vallo di Diano National Park” included in theWorld Heritage List as criterion iii and iv:
Criterion (iii): During the prehistoric period, and again in the Middle Ages, the Cilento region served as a
key route for cultural, political, and commercial communications in an exceptional manner, utilizing theOutline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

crests of the mountain chains running east-west and thereby creating a cultural landscape of outstanding
signiﬁcance and quality.
Criterion (iv): In two key episodes in the development of human societies in the Mediterranean region, theCilento area provided the only viable means of communication between the Adriatic and the Tyrrhenianseas in the central Mediterranean region, and this is vividly illustrated by the cultural landscape of today.

3. Attributes and Values
The most important attributes of the site are, for instance, the three Greek Temples (the Basilica, thetemple of Neptune and the temple of Athena), the Roman City Ruins, the Ancient Walls of the city and theMuseum.

Fig.2 The Basilica

Fig.3 Temple of Neptune

Fig.4 Temple of Athena

Fig.5 Roman City Ruins

Fig.6 The Ancient Walls

Fig.7 The Museum101

Table 1 List of attributes

4. Disaster Risk Analysis
The site, as well as the whole Cilento and Vallo di Diano National Park, has a historical background ofhazards with respect earthquakes, landslides, ﬁres, ﬂoods and lightnings. The lack of knowledge about
the structure of the temples, and the low strenght of stone-made structures such as temples and romanruins, make these elements really vulnerable to earthquakes. Moreover, owing the location of the site,which is close to hills and Sele river, there is the high possibility to face wild ﬁres especially in summertimeand landslides and ﬂoods in case of heavy rains with the probability of the blockage of roads and ﬂoods
in some parts of the site. Furthermore the museum, built in 1952 with no anti-seismic regulations, ismade by a masonry structure with some new parts in reinforced concrete but the overall behaviour is notproperly capable to face horizontal shaking such as the movement of an earthquake. As a consequence,
also objects and collections inside the museum are seriously at risk.
With the following diagram (Fig.8), the reader can understand the synthesis of Risk Analysis with all
the factors which are interlinked with each other with respect the worst possible and probable disaster
scenario.

Fig.8 Risk Analysis diagram102

2.10 Archaeological Site of Paestum, Salerno Province, Italy

On a Saturday evening, a 6.5 magnitude EARTHQUAKE, really shallow (10 km deep) strikes the inner part of the Cilento National Park
(epicenter: Roccadaspide, 40°26’N 15°12’E). Its power reaches rapidily the Archaeological Site provoking the collapse of the Hera Temple (while agreek tragedy show was having been performed) and many other damages to the other greek temples, roman ruins and the Museum (to thestructure and to the collections). The Site was still opened to visitors (many of them got wounded); big loss of Cultural Heritage and future
Economic reflection on the local community;
As a direct consequence of the earthquake, many LANDSLIDES occur in the area of the epicenter causing the blockage of some routes ofconnection to the Archaeological Site, in particular for Civil Protection operative teams (for rescue people and salvage of collections) coming frominner part centres.
Due to presence of houses and restaurants close to the forrest,, a big WILD FIRE occurs on the hill of Capaccio, really close to
Paestum (5-6 km) during the most probable and dangerous period (JULY-AUGUST). Its spread is helped by the WIND. Loss offorest and huge amount of smoke.

Fig.9 Worst possible and probable scenario for the case study

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

5. Prevention and Mitigation measures
Keeping in mind the past hystoric events happened in the area of the above scenario of earthquake,landslides and wild ﬁre, a list of some prevention and mitigation countermeasures have been developed
as shown in the following table (Tab. 2). For the listed mitigation/prevention measures, there are somepriority-cost criteria based on several factors (value of the attribute, feasibility, technologies etc..) andinvolving diﬀerent people and stakeholders.

Table 2 Prevention and Mitigation Measures1036. Preparedness, Emergency and Response procedures
Normally, in case of a disaster, human lives are the ﬁrst priority but in order to be properly prepared to
face an extreme event, in particular in cultural heritage sites, there is also a need to think about movable /immovable, tangible / intangible attributes and to ensure their safety. It could be make possible following
these several indications for each cultural heritage site:・

site map, buildings ﬂoor maps and building and objects/collections inventories should be in aready-to-use form・

need of evacuation plan for visitors, staﬀ and object/collections (archaeological site andmuseum)・need of a list for most valuable objects/collections which have to be evacuated ﬁrst from themuseum・prepare post event damage and risk assessment form・

training (volunteers and institutional teams) for post event damage and risk assessments

・

propose emergency team based on the Site in order to be ready in case of a small/large event・

emergency response coordination lead by regional and provincial Civil Protection units

・emergency drills with the whole Archaeological Site emergency responders and staﬀ

・

communication systems around the Site (free-WiFi, Facebook Page, Crowd Map, Whatsapp

Fig. 10 Evacuation Plan Proposal for the Site104

2.10 Archaeological Site of Paestum, Salerno Province, Italy

7. Recovery Planning

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

Fig 11 Short, medium and long term Recovery Planning

8. Conclusion
The preservation and enhancement of Cultural Heritage is a topic of crucial importance today as it
guarantees the bond between the past and the present in order to preserve local identities for future
generations. Italy, as it is well known, is a nation with a huge Cultural Heritage and, therefore, theimportance that comes to this sector is even more pronounced. The Archaeological Site of Paestum is oneof the most important sites in southern Italy, but also at national level and, precisely for this reason, a moreaccurate Risk Management could be triggered by the development of an adequate DRRM Plan which
could perform the function of pilot project. It could be the ﬁrst step in the design process that would leadto the drafting of the DRRM Plan for the whole "Cilento and Vallo del Diano National Park".

References
1) http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/842: “Cilento and Vallo di Diano National Park with the ArchaeologicalSites of Paestum, Velia and the Certosa of Padula”;
2) http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/842.pdf: “WHC Nomination ﬁle”;
3) Primo Rapporto ANCE / CRESME 2012;
http://www.museopaestum.beniculturali.it/

105

2.11 Old City of Mrauk U

Khin Aye Yee
World Bank, Myanmar

1. Introduction
The city of Mrauk U was the old capital of the Rakhine (Arakan) Kingdom from 15th to 18th century AD,
and was established in 1431 by King Min Saw Mon. Mrauk U is located in Rakhine Stateʼs river valley areas,

the western part of Myanmar on the border with Bangladesh, and was built as a fortress city enforced
by a smart hydrology system surrounded by mountains and waterways. It was a major trading port in
the Bay of Bengal where hundreds of ships on their way from Europe to eastern trading cities like Java
were docked, and was always
crowded with foreign traders‒ Europeans, Arabs, Indians,
Mon, and Burmese from
Ava Kingdom. At its peak,
Mrauk U controlled half ofBangladesh, including Dhaka
and Chittagong, half of lower
Burma and current Rakhine(Arakan) State. However, theheyday of Mrauk U ended
abruptly in the early 19th
century when it fell after the Fig.1 Research on Cultural Heritage of Mrauk-U, Key Laboratory or Urban and Architectural
Heritage Conservation (SEU), Ministry of Education China and Mrauk U Branch, Department of

Burmese invasion from the Archeology, Ministry of Culture, Myanmar
Ava Kingdom near Mandalay.

Mrauk U is now a small traditional town with an area of approximately 30 square miles and a
total population of 200,000 who are majority Buddhist. Up until today, you can see around 4,000
pagodas on the areaʼs landscape but the Mrauk U site has been neglected and suﬀered from bothnatural and man-made disasters for many years. The State has not allocated the suﬃcient budget
for maintenance of the ancient city. Mrauk U has been listed on the Tentative List since 1996
though there were no progress. The current government is now paying attention to conservationof Mrauk U and nominating it for the World Heritage List as part of the Rakhine development
plan by 2018. The governmentʼs commitments have become essential to moving Mrauk U
conservation forward and disaster management planning.

106

2.11 Old City of Mrauk U

2. Cultural Heritage Attributes and Values
Ancient Arakanese cities are situated in theriver valley areas. These capitals can be divided
into two groups. Firstly, the cities ﬂourished in
the Kaladan Valley and secondly, in the Lemro
Valley. Four main rivers in Arakan State, namely
Naaf, Mayu, Kaladan and Lemro, have narrow
alluvial flood plains. In the main Kaladan andLemro Valleys, the hills often stand out as low
ridges above
Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

the ﬂood plain.
A strategic
fortress city
Fig.3

is positioned Fig.2
between hills and streams, and characterized by a complex system ofstone walls, reservoirs, moats and a water gate with both hydrological and defensive purposes. Around
4,000 masterpieces of art and architecture such as temples, monuments, and libraries were recorded and
400 were registered.

Fig.4 Mrauk U Archaeology Zone and properties zone maps by Mrauk U Branch, Department of Archaelogy.

107

3. Hazards, Vulnerabilities and Impact
Devastating catastrophes in thepast as well as recurring disasters
adversely affecting Myanmar
and its people highlight boththe need to reduce disaster risk
and to build resilience. In theaftermath of past disasters, thegovernment has had to divert
existing resources earmarked fordevelopment projects to ﬁnanceemergency relief, response andFig.5 National Disaster Management Committee, Myanmar

recovery activities.

Further, vulnerable communities take a longer time to recover from disaster impacts, making it moredifficult to stabilize the local economy and ultimately impeding national progress. If the country andits communities become more resilient to disaster, losses will be mitigated and the recovery processaccelerated.
Aside from Myanmarʼs exposure to natural hazards, climate variability, environmental degradation, andhazard development contribute to the likelihood of incurring increased damage and losses in the eventof a disaster. Rakhine State in particular is prone to several hazard types which have caused monumental
damage and loss of lives in the area over the years. At least four cyclones pass Myanmar from Bay of
Bengal every year and most of them hit Rakhine State, resulting in damage and losses due to strong wind
as well as coastal ﬂooding from the cyclone-induced storm surge. Moreover, the mountainous areas of thestate have faced a landslide problem in the past, especially in the rainy season.
Mrauk Uʼs cultural sites arelocated in a flood prone areain Rakhine State. The averageannual rainfall is more than
200 mm. The flash floods andlandslides coming from Kaladan
and Laymyo Rivers every year,
and the 2016 Chauk earthquake
also negatively impacted Mrauk
U and some monuments weredamaged. As the poorest statein the country, there is a lack ofknowledge and resources on

Fig.6 Natural Hazard Risk Assessment in Rakhine State of Myanmar, November, 2011, UNDP

disaster preparedness.
Mrauk Uʼs cultural sites are located in a ﬂood prone area in Rakhine State. The average annual rainfall ismore than 200 mm. The ﬂash ﬂoods and landslides coming from Kaladan and Laymyo Rivers every year,
and the 2016 Chauk earthquake also negatively impacted Mrauk U and some monuments were damaged.
As the poorest state in the country, there is a lack of knowledge and resources on disaster preparedness.
1082.11 Old City of Mrauk U

The following risk analysis showed that Mrauk U has both catastrophic and progressive hazards. The
catastrophic includes flash floods and earthquakes followed by fire, collapse and debris flow. The
progressive hazards showed conﬂicts and long ﬂood. The main vulnerabilities are weak temple structure,lack of maintenance, valuable ancient statues, lack of management, lack of technical people, blocked oldwater system, political sensitivity, religious extremism, river ecology, poor land and waste management
systems.

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

Fig.7 Hazard, Vulnerabilities and Impact Assessment, Case Study of Mrauk U

Flooding caused by torrential rains in highlands is not only enhanced by climate change but also thepolitical agenda with regards to cultural sensitivities as well as a lack of knowledge in the community interms of maintenance; this has been leading to gradual decay of the Mrauk U heritage site.

4. Emergency Preparedness and Response
Mainstreaming heritage conservation within existing DRM policy frameworks should be done acrosslocal as well as national levels. Preservation should be recognized as an integral part of rehabilitation.
Simultaneously, heritage management policies and plans must incorporate DRM policies. This will ensurea more eﬀective approach in which stakeholders focus on respective responsibilities. (Zuzana 2018)
Myanmar has a National Disaster Management Committee with 10 sub-committees chaired by the vicepresident. The Disaster Management Law and Myanmar Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction areenacted in conjunction with the Hyogo Framework for Action and the Sendai Framework for Disaster
Risk Reduction (2012). The Environmental Conservation Law (2012), and The Protection and Preservationof Cultural Heritage Law (1998) were also link with international framework between aspects of culture,risk reduction, and resilience, and so provide a foundation and enabling policy environment formainstreaming for Disaster Risk Management (DRM) to preserve cultural assets. However, Myanmarʼs legal
policies need to improve those links.
The Disaster Risk Management Plan was developed for overall immediate actions which identified
involved parties, timelines, funding sources together with monitoring and evaluation. A few importantmonuments and places are mentioned in the below sample of the DRM plan.
109

A variety of measures can betaken to reduce disaster risks
to cultural assets, including
both physical mitigation andnon-engineered solutions suchas improved building codes,
coordination, and inventory.
Data and technology canhelp protect monuments
against natural disasters at thelevel defined by criteria and
Fig.8

expected risks, for example byhelping to prioritize and protect the most important heritage assets in the context of limited resources.
Post-disaster recovery is a sensitive time when additional factors (debris removal, theft, misclassiﬁcation,
further disaster events) can amplify the impact of the initial disaster. Stakeholders need to be better
prepared if they are to eﬀectively respond to disaster impacts on heritage assets and support sensitive
recovery, especially when local communities and livelihoods are closely connected to heritage sites.
Beyond physical characteristics, vulnerability is also driven by the socioeconomic environment in which
cultural assets exist. (Jigyasu 2016)110

2.11 Old City of Mrauk U

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants

Fig.9

5. Capacity Building and Community Engagement
There are multiple dimensions to the role played by communities in relation to cultural assets. Bothresidents and nonresidents may pose risks to cultural heritage, such as through social issues like dumpingof waste, illegal construction, and vandalism. Because the community and technical bodies/experts
may have different priorities and make different uses of sites, achieving consensus between them on
emergency response, post-disaster recovery, and long-term risk reduction can also pose challenges.
(Zuzana 2017).
Mrauk Oo is located in a two-river creek and environmental issues such as erosion of the river banks aswell as extension of human settlements are critical. Worsening the situation are a lack of awareness onhygiene and waste management.
It is important to build the capacity of government and other stakeholders for identification andmonitoring of risks, risk reduction and response to disasters, and recovery and restoration efforts. Civil
protection departments, heritage ministries, local governments, private investors, and communities canwork together on preserving cultural heritage (Lingua et al. forthcoming). Lead agencies for heritage
conservation need to understand DRM principles, as their contribution is vital not only for coordinating
immediate post-disaster eﬀorts, but also for ex ante asset management and risk reduction.
Community engagement in DRM is of great signiﬁcance. Community perceptions of risks and mitigation
measures associated with a particular heritage asset may not necessarily conform to views of technicalexperts. Consultations are essential to arriving at a consensus, and may be especially important in bringing

111

stakeholders together at the start of a project; so that communities can play an important role acrossdiﬀerent DRM stages, particularly risk monitoring and emergency response. (Zuzana 2017)

Fig.10 Community participation to protect city wall by ﬂooding in 2017

6. Conclusion
There are many challenges in promoting resilient cultural heritage. There is a lack of knowledge andresources in the development of a Disaster Risk Management Plan in Mrauk U which could cover cultural
heritage as well as awareness to all stakeholders. The four important aspects to pay attention to are alegal framework, heritage, landscape and community in addition to risk analysis, a preparedness plan andresponse.

References
1) ADPC, 2015, Road Map of Risk Assessment, Myanmar
2) Galen, S.E.A.van, 2008, Doctoral thesis, Leiden University, Arakan and Bengal : the rise and decline of the
Mrauk U kingdom (Burma) from the ﬁfteenth to the seventeeth century AD (Chapter 3)3) Jacques P. Leider, May 1999, Arakan during the Mrauk U Period: The Political Success of a Buddhist
Border States, Historical Conference on seventeenth Century Southeast Asia
4) Jigyasu, R. 2016, “Reducing Disaster Risks to Urban Cultural Heritage: Global Challenges andOpportunities.” Journal of Heritage management.
5) Key Laboratory of Urban and Architectural Heritage Conservation(SEU), Ministry of Education, China
and Mrauk U Branch, Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Culture, Union of Myanmar, RESEARCH ON
CULTURAL HERITAGE OF MRAUK U, MYANMAR
6) Nyein Lwin, Director, Department of Archeology, Ministry of Religious and CultureOld Water
Management of Mrauk-U Ancient City
7) Salman Anees Soz and Zuzana Stanton-Geddes, Knowledge Note- promoting Disaster-Resilient Cultural
Heritage, October 20178) UNDP, 2011, Multi Hazard Risk Assessemtn in Rakhine State of Myanmar112

3 Activities undertaken
after The International Training Course
by Former Participants3.1 Ministry for Culture and Heritage, New Zealand

Helen McCracken
Ministry for Culture and Heritage, New Zealand

1. BackgroundI have an MA in Anthropology, focusing on archaeology. Since graduating in 1994, I have had a longand varied career working in the cultural heritage sector, including undertaking historical research for
iwi/Māori, local authorities and conservation architects. From 2001 to 2006 I worked for Heritage New
Zealand, New Zealandʼs leading place-based cultural heritage agency. This included a period of time as
the Registrar for what is now known as the New Zealand Heritage List Rarangi Taonga. I currently work for
the Ministry for Culture and Heritage as a Senior Policy Adviser in its Heritage Policy Team.

2. Canterbury Earthquakes saw the loss of many heritage buildings
In February 2011 New Zealandʼs second largest city was struck by 6.3 magnitude earthquake. The region
had already been hit by a number of earthquakes at the end of 2010, but the epicentre of the February
event was closer to Christchurch and shallower. One hundred and eight-ﬁve people lost their lives andmany more were injured. The earthquake and subsequent aftershocks caused signiﬁcant (and ongoing)
disruption to the social, economic, natural, built and cultural environment of Christchurch and theCanterbury region as a whole. Much of Christchurchʼs building stock, including a signiﬁcant number ofheritage buildings, were destroyed or later demolished. The impact of the earthquakes had a profound
impact on how many New Zealanders saw heritage buildings, and, even though most of the deaths
occurred in non-heritage buildings, it led to questions about whether New Zealandʼs older building stock
was safe.

3. Changes to New Zealandʼs building legislation
At the end of 2011, the then Department of Building and Housing launched a review of the earthquake
prone building policy. It was a requirement under the Building Act 2004 that all local authorities shouldhave a policy to require the strengthening of earthquake prone buildings, including heritage buildings,
within certain timeframes determined by individual authorities. I became involved in this review as arepresentative from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage.
It was in this context that in 2012 I applied, and was selected, to attend the 7th UNESCO Chair International
Training Course on Disaster Management of Cultural Heritage. The theme for that year was disasters
and cultural heritage in historic areas, in particular ʻFrom Recovery to Risk Reduction for Sustainability ofHistoric Areasʼ.1 My chosen case study was the ʻCuba Street Historic Areaʼ, situated in Wellington, thecapital city of New Zealand. Many of the buildings were considered earthquake-prone and in need ofstrengthening and, due to the events of 2010 and 2011, were of great concern to many.
Attending the course in Japan greatly assisted my work, as it allowed me to think about the wider context
to managing risk for heritage buildings. In particular, it reaﬃrmed to me that disaster-risk management for
cultural heritage cannot happen in isolation.
In 2015 a new system for managing earthquake prone buildings was introduced in New Zealand. Thechanges brought in a nationally consistent framework for identifying buildings that posed the greatest

114

3.1 Ministry for Culture and Heritage, New Zealandrisks, allowing for targeting speciﬁc geographic areas due to the likelihood of a seismic event and speciﬁcparts of building that posed the greatest risk.

4. Development of a seismic strengthening heritage incentive package
In parallel with the development of the legislation and as part of my work in the Ministry for Cultureand Heritage, I took the lead on investigating the potential for funding the seismic strengthening of
heritage buildings. The work involved trying to understand what were the key barriers for owners whoneeded to undertake strengthening of heritage buildings. Although funding was the main issue, formany owners it was also the lack of knowledge of how go about strengthening a building and having
certainty that a proposed engineering solution would be eﬀective. There was also the added complicationof the regulations around preserving the heritage values of the place and how they might inﬂuence thestrengthening solution.
Activities undertaken after The International Training Course by Former Participants

In recognition of the extra costs that heritage owners face, in 2016 the Government announced theestablishment of a fund to assist privately-owned heritage buildings undertake seismic strengthening.
This fund was accompanied by an information package to help owners make informed decisions on how
to strengthen their buildings. Initially a $12 million dollar package spread over four years, the fund has
just completed its ﬁrst year of operation.2

5. Understanding the lessons from Christchurch
In addition to the work on the new seismic strengthening initiative for heritage buildings, in 2015 I joined
the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) as a part-time researcher for their lessons andlegacy project. CERA was a government department set up in April 2011 under special legislation tolead and coordinate the New Zealand Governmentʼs response and recovery following the 2010 and 2011
Canterbury earthquakes. CERA was intended to have a limited life and was eventually disestablished in
April 2016 as part of a transition from a Government-led recovery to a long-term locally-led arrangement.
I was part of a team of researchers and oral historians who undertook a number of interviews andworkshops focusing on various aspects of the agencyʼs work. The results of this work were publishedalongside the recollections of other agencies (including non-government) involved in the recovery on a
web platform known as EQ Recovery Learning.3

6. First Aid to Cultural Heritage in Times of Crisis
In 2016 I had the opportunity to expand my skills and knowledge in disaster risk management when I
attended the International Course on First Aid to Cultural Heritage in Times of Crisis (FAC), held for theﬁrst time in Washington, D.C. Hosted by the Smithsonian and ICCROM, the month-long course, involving
21 participants from 18 countries, focussed on how to respond to the threat to cultural heritage in timesof crisis. Through classroom activities and practical exercises, the course took participants through the
key components of the cultural first aid process of context analysis, on-site survey, and security andstabilisation actions. 4 (See images below.)
In many ways the sister programme to the ITC course, the FAC course has seen over 100 people trainedin Cultural First Aid since its establishment in 2010, and many more through regional programmes. It has
now reached a point where it needs to become a self-sustainable programme, recognised as the bestpractice framework for providing ﬁrst aid response to cultural heritage at immediate risk from disasters.
In October 2017 I along with a number of previous participants gathered at ICCROM in Rome, with the115course partner agencies from the Smithsonian, USA and the Prince Claus Fund, the Netherlands, UNESCO,CRAterre (France), Italian Civil Protection, and Ritsumeikan University (Japan) to participate in a workshop
to review the existing First Aid international training. The workshop also looked at how to create aneﬀective network of cultural ﬁrst aiders.
Attending the workshop were three other graduates of the ITC course who have also had the beneﬁt ofattending the FAC course. (See image below.)

7. Using the information from ITC
Much of my current work within the Ministry for Culture and Heritage is focussed on helping advise othergovernment agencies on how to incorporate heritage in their policy development. With the knowledge
provided by the ITC and FAC courses, I have gained considerable confidence in raising awareness forbetter disaster risk management for cultural heritage.
I have been very keen to share my developing knowledge in this area. Since 2013 I have been a guest
lecturer for the Museum & Heritage Studies programme at Victoria University, introducing the concept ofdisaster risk management to post-graduate students. This has included teaming up with another past
graduate of ITC, Richard Nester, to run a day workshop for students.

8. Future work
As part of my role in the Ministry, I have commenced a piece of work to understand how culture andcultural heritage is important to New Zealandʼs resilience, including its place within New Zealandʼsdisaster risk management system.
This work is very much in its early stages, focused on identifying who is currently working and researchingin this area within New Zealand, and includes initial thinking about how we might begin to deﬁne culturalresilience for New Zealand. Teaming up with organisations such as QuakeCORE: the New Zealand Centre
for Earthquake Resilience, the intention is to bring together policy makers, practitioners and academics
to better understand the role of culture and cultural heritage to resilience, which, in turn, will inform how
better investment in the cultural sector to improve resilience for New Zealanders as a whole.5
The work has huge potential to connect the cultural sector with others, including those working in the
more traditional emergency management areas, to understand more about how culture influences
resilience. This cross-sector interest is not only due to the recent developments on the international stage
around meeting obligations under the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, but also borne outof the knowledge gained since the Canterbury Earthquakes in 2010 and 2011 and how disasters eﬀect the
lives of people and communities and what they value.

Reference1) http://www.preventionweb.net/ﬁles/26814̲itc2012backgroundandobjective.pdf

2) http://heritageequip.govt.nz/

3) http://www.stuﬀ.co.nz/national/politics/82951187/government-announces-12-million-tosupport-quakeprone-heritage-buildings4) http://www.eqrecoverylearning.org/
5) https://culturalrescue.si.edu/projects/training/2016-ﬁrst-aid-cultural-heritage-times-crisis/6) http://www.quakecore.nz

1163.1 Ministry for Culture and Heritage, New ZealandFirst Aid for Cultural Heritage in Times of Crisis, Washington June 2016
All images taken by Eugénie Crété. Images reproduced by permission of ICCROM.

Activities undertaken after The International Training Course by Former Participants

Fig. 1 Learning to communicate with key stakeholders during a crisis.

Fig. 2 Practicing emergency shoring techniques117Fig. 3 Learning how to triage a museum collection in need of evacuation

FAC Design Workshop, hosted by ICCROM, Rome 2017

Photo © Madhusudan Singh
Past attendees of ITC AbdelHamid Salah, Zeynep Gül Ünal, Helen McCracken, and Valeria Suruceanu with
Rohit Jigyasu, UNESCO Chair professor at the Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage at
Ritsumeikan University.

118

3.2 CHwB Albania Projects on Risk Management and First Aid Response
Elena Mamani
Deputy Executive Director/ Program Manager
Cultural Heritage without Borders, Albania

1. Introduction
The foundation Cultural Heritage without Borders (CHwB) is an independent non-governmentalorganization dedicated to rescuing and preserving tangible and intangible cultural heritage aﬀected by
conﬂict, neglect or natural disasters.Founded by Swedish intellectuals back in 1995 as a reaction to thetargeted destruction of cultural monuments during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the organisation
has expanded its activities to other countries in the Balkans, as well.
CHwB works with heritage conservation and interpretation, community empowerment, education andmuseum development. We design and implement innovative strategies and manage various interventions
on the ground̶ using cultural heritage as an active force in peace building, promoting human rights anddeveloping a sustainable socio-economic environment.
Following the overall mission of the organization, CHwB-Albania has been very active for the last 10 years,
working with heritage restoration, conservation, emergency interventions, revitalization, interpretationand training in Albania and the Western Balkans region.
In recent years, the work of CHwB-Albania has also been directed towards risk management and ﬁrst aid
response. This development has been inspired by the attendance of two staff members at the course
on "Disaster Risk Management of Culture Heritage" at Ritsumeikan University, Japan in September 2014
and the ICCROM course “First Aid to Cultural Heritage in Times of Crisis” in Amsterdam in April 2015.
These experiences, along with the support of the Prince Claus Fund and the Swedish Government, haveallowed CHwB Albania to develop several activities with this focus in Albania and the region. Some ofthese activities were worked up during the training in Japan and have already been introduced as pilot
ideas within the Disaster Risk Management Plan for the Historical Center of Gjirokastra, a UNESCO World
Heritage Site.

2. Condition Assessment: Gjirokastra Monuments
Gjirokastra's historic zone is vulnerable to a range of natural disasters and human interferences. The
political and economic situation in Albania over the last 20 years has also had a negative impact on thecondition of historical buildings. Unsolved ownership issues and out-migration of population are only
some of the reasons behind the lack of preservation and rapid deterioration observed throughout the city.
The poor condition of monuments, as well as the lack of maintenance or negligence, make them evenmore vulnerable to hazards such as earthquake or ﬁre, which are identiﬁed as the most frequent hazards
for the city.
The preservation of Gjirokastraʼs cultural heritage is vital to the cityʼs economy as tourism is seen as a basic
resource for the development of the city.
CHwB-Albania saw that there was an urgent need to investigate the current condition of thelisted monuments. Information is the key to better management but also a very important tool forpolicymakers, specialists and developers to mitigate or even prevent further destruction. Therefore,
CHwB, in collaboration with the Regional Directorate of National Monuments of Culture(DRKK) and Epoka
119University, conducted a risk assessment evaluation for 658 listed monuments within the historical coreof the city. The results of this survey were compiled in a statistical report and GIS maps (figure 1) that
illustrate the level of risk of the monuments of Gjirokastra. The goal of the assessment was to analyze thecondition of the monuments and prioritize them according to the need for intervention. The report wasused to alert the government about the critical situation facing the built heritage of the city; to assist themin deﬁning conservation strategies according to the level of risk and the values of the monuments; and tobuild an operational plan for interventions.
Each monument was assessed using a condition assessment form. In this way, a documentation folder
was created for each monument containing the completed assessment and photos. The methodology
for prioritizing intervention focused on cross-referencing the condition, occupancy/use, risk category andhistorical content of each monument. The priorities for interventions were then analysed, resulting in
proposed sets of actions for 7 diﬀerent priority categories of monuments.
According to the results of the condition assessment, the designated monuments of Gjirokastra arein a critical condition. Of the 658 monuments assessed, 169 are in poor or very bad overall condition1out of which 35 are in ruins. When classified according to the abovementioned priority categories, it
was found that 51 monuments are in need of the most urgent interventions, while a further 40 require
urgent interventions of some kind. Illegal interventions have aﬀected 357 monuments, which represents
more than half of the listed monuments in Gjirokastra. Of these, 122 have lost all their monumental
characteristics. A further 170 are transformed almost totally.
Vacant monuments still represent the biggest threat to Gjirokastraʼs historic fabric. Today in Gjirokastra
there are 79 unoccupied monuments (not including ruins) and their condition is worsening.
The objective of the assessment was to lay the foundations for a hands-on strategy for interventions in
Gjirokastra. The results of the assessment were presented to the National Technical Council of Monumentsof Culture in Albania and also at conferences and meetings with important donor and policy-making
institutions in Albania. The assessment is intended to direct the priorities for all future interventions onmonuments in Gjirokastra.

Fig.1 Map of Priority G Category2, second (lower) category monuments
1
2

120

Overall condition scale is: Good, Fair, Poor, Very Bad
Priority Category G, Building in a good or fair condition and end use or user identiﬁed; building with high or
low historical values.

3.2 CHwB Albania Projects on Risk Management and First Aid Response

Currently CHwB-Albania is conducting, together with Worcester Polytechnic University in Massachusetts,
the Regional Directorate for the Protection of National Monuments in Berat and Berat Municipality, acondition assessment of listed monuments in the historical city of Berat (listed as a World Heritage Site
together with Gjirokastra) and is preparing an update on the condition of the monuments in Gjirokastra.
This time the assessment is linked more to the risk of natural and manmade hazards, in addition to
current condition and occupancy. As in the case of Gjirokastra, the data gathered through the assessment
will be compiled in reports and strategies for interventions. Due to the current governmentʼs overall
strategy to develop the economies of these two cities based on their cultural heritage resources, this is
the right moment for both assessments to be ﬁnalised and their data to be used to build the strategy ofinterventions.

3. Balkan Culture Aid Response for Emergencies (B+Care)
Activities undertaken after The International Training Course by Former Participants

The Balkans is a geographical region of Southeast Europe that faces similar risks from natural andmanmade disasters- ranging from earthquakes, ﬂoods and ﬁres to riots and interethnic conﬂict. With somany hazards, however, national emergency response is often inadequate, particularly when it comes tothreats to culture heritage. Therefore, we saw the need for a cross-border initiative to address the needs ofculture heritage in times of crisis across the region. B+CARE is a regional project that aims to:1.

Understand the risks to heritage in the Balkans and formulate strategies to address those risks.

2.

Coordinate with and among national disaster response institutions and cultural institutions on

3.

Train and deploy a network of volunteers that can conduct ʻﬁrst aidʼ for cultural heritage acrosseﬀective strategies for cultural emergency response.
the Balkans.
The pilot training on First Aid response implemented in partnership with Urban Development Center‒ Belgrade (UDC), gathered 20 young participants (most of them from the alumni network of Regional
Restoration Camps,( http://chwb.org/albania/activities/rrc/) from the Balkans who had both theknowledge of culture heritage and a desire to protect and preserve heritage in case of disasters. The one
week training in Gjirokastra created a strong basis for a regional program, with a dedicated ﬁrst group of
volunteers in the region. Contacts were created with the national disaster response institutions in Albania
and Serbia and gathered together a resource base information on diﬀerent risks and hazards threatening
culture heritage in the region, in a website (balkancare.net). In addition, a quick reference brochure wasproduced (available in all regional languages), on how to prepare heritage sites and collections in case of
emergencies.

Fig.2 1st B-CARE training in Gjirokastra (Albania)

Fig.3 2nd B-CARE training, Prishtina week (Kosovo)121

The 2nd phase of the B+CARE program aimed to build on the current eﬀorts on risk preparedness anddisaster response with a cross border project implemented by all three CHwB oﬃces in the region (Albania,
Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo) (figure 3). This project was divided into three concrete countrybased interventions within a common 3-week training running in all three countries (one week in eachcountry). Through this training, 28 heritage students and junior professionalscoming from the Western
Balkans, Eastern Europe and the Middle East were introduced to disaster risk management and ﬁrst aid tocultural heritage through a comprehensive training in both theory and practice that focused on museum
artifacts, historic buildings and intangible heritage.The geographical origin of the participants was
expanded from the ﬁrst training, so as to accommodate the need for increased capacity in the ﬁrst aid tocultural heritage for neighboring regions that share common challenges.
Among the most important documents consulted when designing this training were the "Disaster Risk
Management of Cultural Heritage in Urban Areas" training guide developed by Ritsumeikan University,
UNESCO World Heritage Centre and ICCROM, as well as the “ICCROM Programme on Disaster and Risk
Management” background paper by Aparna Tandon and the personal experience of the CHwB staff
members that participated in these two trainings. These guiding documents were complemented by
the huge expertise brought to the training by experienced professionals from ICCROM, GEA Search andRescue, ICOMOS-ICORP, the Egyptian Heritage Rescue Foundation and others.
B+CARE now exists as a regional platform for training, awareness raising and response for cultural heritage
threatened by disaster. However, more work needs to be done, in terms of formulating strategies forresponse in case of disaster.

4. Utilization of Traditional Water Cisterns as Water Resource in Case of Fire,(Pilot Project in Two Historical Cities).

The idea of revitalizing the traditional system of collecting rain water and making this water available
for the firefighting system started back in 2004, during the DRM training in Kyoto. Due to the limited
waterresources in both Gjirokastra and Berat, people used to collect rainwater in water cisterns ‒dedicated rooms within their houses. Nowadays the townsʼ water supply networks have marginalized
the cisterns. Only a few of them are still functional while the rest are either left without maintenance ortransformed into living rooms serving the needs of growing families.
Gjirokastra and Beratʼs historic zones are vulnerable to a range of human and natural disasters. Fire is oneof the hazards with the highest probability of occurrence. Within the histories of both cities, there havebeen many records of ﬁres and of monuments completely destroyed by ﬁre.
The firefighting systems in both Gjirokastra and Berat are limited and not very efficient, taking into
consideration the limited water supply in both cities, the absence of fire detection devices, the street
infrastructure of the historical zone that severely limits access for fire engines, as well as the close
proximity of the buildings, which could lead to ﬁre spreading quickly from building to building.
While the water supply systems in both cities are insufficient to cover the need for fire protection, theinbuilt traditional water cisterns have an enormous capacity of unused rain water. One water cisterncontains from 50m³ to 120m³ of water inside its walls while one fire truck contains 3-9m³ of water, 15
times less than the water cistern. Besides this, due to the speciﬁc urban landscape of both cities, less thanhalf of the monuments can be accessed by car.

122

3.2 CHwB Albania Projects on Risk Management and First Aid Response

The aim of this project was to use the traditional knowledge and practices of the local people to copewith the threats and hazards facing Gjirokastra and Beratʼs built heritage. As such, this project intended torevitalize the historical water cisterns, as well as revitalizing intangible aspects of Gjirokastra and Beratʼs
heritage, like the ritual of collecting rainwater and the knowledge of traditional materials and practices.
In this project, the traditional water cisterns can be integratedinto the city ﬁreﬁghting systems by turningthem into water resources in case of a ﬁre.
In brief, the objectives of this project are:Develop an integrated strategy for disaster preparedness and response in case of ﬁre;2.

Train local staﬀ to be prepared in case of emergency;

3.

Raise awareness within the local community on how to behave in case of ﬁre;4.

Engage a large array of social groups actively in the process of heritage protection and

Activities undertaken after The International Training Course by Former Participants1.

disaster response;
5.

Conserve and restore the traditional water cisterns within the monuments and also revitalize
the traditional ritual of collecting rainwater.

In Gjirokastra, CHwB-Albania staﬀ identiﬁed possible monuments to intervene, taking into consideration
diﬀerent aspects:-

Coverage of all neighborhoods within the historical center;-

The importance and values of the monuments;-

The presence of functional water cisterns in the monuments;-

The possible number of surrounding monuments to be covered by the ﬁre extinguisher system
in case of ﬁre;-Accessibility of monuments by car;-

Water supply in the neighborhood.

A map of selected monuments was prepared, which also shows the coverage of other monuments aroundthe selected ones. A folder with materials for each monument was prepared, including site plans of themonuments, drawings, photos and descriptions of the condition of the cistern systems.
Several meetings have been organized between the CHwB team, the owners of the selected monuments,
the ﬁre department of the city, the directorate responsible for the maintenance of the monuments and amechanical engineer so as to decide on the best possible solution for the system to be installed and also
the monuments where the systems will be installed.
Three different scale proposals were developed, starting from solutions covering one monument tosolutions covering a whole neighborhood. Based on the funds available for the moment, it was decided
to implement two pilot projects, one in each city, Berat and Gjirokastra. This was done in order to increase
the impact of the project by extending this new approach to another important site, which faces many of
the same problems as Gjirokastra, in terms of the threats to cultural heritage.
The system contains the installation of a pumping system within the cistern and its connection witha hydrant that can be used by the owner of the house where the pump is installed, as well as by theneighbours and the ﬁre department. In case of ﬁre, the owners can immediately react in the ﬁrst crucial

123

Fig.43, 54, 65. Installation of pumping system at Jaho monument in the Historic Center of Gjirokastra (World Heritage Site)

minutes of the ﬁre and localize it while the ﬁre department can connect their pipes and use the water ofthe cistern to completely extinguish the ﬁre. The whole system is automatic and completely independentof electricity. The system is successfully installed and fully functional in Gjirokastra (ﬁgure4,5,6), while inBerat the works are still in progress.
Training of the local community on how to react in case of ﬁre and how to use the system installed in themonuments will be organized by the ﬁre departments in both cities.

5. Ways Foreword
CHwB Albania is currently working on its strategic re-orientation and will continue to build its
organizational knowledge and capacities in DRM (particularly disaster preparedness and mitigation, butalso response if opportunities allow).

3
4
5

124

Figure 4. Testing of the ﬁre extinguisher system installed at Jaho monument in Gjirokastra
Figure 5. Hydrants installed at Jaho monument in Gjirokastra
Figure 6. Generator installed to make the ﬁre extinguisher independent of electricity

3.2 CHwB Albania Projects on Risk Management and First Aid Response

Reference
1) DRM Plan for Historic Center of Gjirokastra, Publication for International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto Japan. September 2014
2) Lejla Hadzic, Elena Mamani: Condition Assessment for monument Buildings in Gjirokastra, Conference“50 Years Study and Restoration of Albania Cultural Heritage”, Tirana, October 2015, Published in thescientiﬁc publication of the Institute of Monuments of Culture in Albania, "Monuments", No 54/2, 20163) Water Cisterns in Historical Houses, Publication of ISCCE conference, Epoka University, May 2015,
Published in the scientiﬁc publication of the Institute of Monuments of Culture in Albania,"Monuments", No 53, 2016
4) Final report on B-Care program, CHwB Albania, August 20175) Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage in Urban Areas ‒ A Training Guide, R. Jigyasu, V. Arora,
Activities undertaken after The International Training Course by Former Participants

Research Centre for Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan
6) Notes from lectures during UNESCO Chair Program on Cultural Heritage and Risk Management,International Training Course (ITC) on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage 2014125

3.3 Resilient Cultural Heritage at the World Bank
‒ Learning from the Japanese Expertise ‒ 2017
Barbara Minguez Garcia
Disaster Risk Management and Cultural Heritage Specialist, World Bank, Spain

After my participation in the ITC 2016 , I finished my case study report with the following sentence:
Hopefully, the end of this article is just the beginning of future projects. I had just mentioned an initiativethat it was starting to take shape; at that time it was just an idea, an intention from the World Bank
Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Hub in Tokyo, to engage Japanese experts to capture key solutions forresilient cultural heritage to be shared with World Bank clients and teams. One year later, that intention
has already become a whole technical assistance project including several activities, some completed andsome still ongoing. And it is being possible thanks to the support of the R-DMUCH team.
For me, and I guess also for many other ITC former participants, becoming part of the international
network of DRM of Cultural Heritage practitioners has been a key to open professional opportunities
based in collaborations with other colleagues worldwide. Here my experience.

1. Engaging Japanese expertise ‒ the DRM Hub, Tokyo (GFDRR)
The World Bank has significant resources and a professional network in the area of DRM. For instance,
the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) is a global partnership that helps
developing countries better understand and reduce their vulnerabilities to natural hazards and adapt toclimate change. In the area of Cultural Heritage, the World Bank is cooperating closely with governments
and ﬁnancing a number of initiatives. However, there is still opportunity to further mainstream cultural
heritage in the DRM agenda of developing countries.
From 2014, and inspired by the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in 2011, the Japanese
Ministry of Finance and the World Bank established the “Japan-World Bank Program for Mainstreaming
DRM in Developing Countries. ” It is administrated by GFDRR through the DRM Hub in Tokyo. Among
their technical assistance projects, and inspired by the ITC, the DRM Hub team decided to develop aknowledge program on Resilient Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Tourism, aiming to share Japanese andinternational expertise on DRM for Cultural Heritage with World Bank clients and teams.
The Resilient Cultural Heritage program includes three components:
1.

Development of Knowledge Products: aiming to serve teams currently working on the topic andat the same time mainstreaming resilient cultural heritage within the World Bank.

2.

Technical Deep Dive (TDD): one-week learning program in Japan for World Bank clients and staﬀ
including lectures, site visits and work on speciﬁc action plans for the teams.

3.

Operational Support to speciﬁc World Bank projects: covering speciﬁc needs within the topic of
DRM for Cultural Heritage, requested by World Bank teams.

This program is possible thanks to key partnerships and collaborations with Japanese institutions such as
the Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage at Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH), theAgency for Cultural Affairs (ACA) Government of Japan, Hyogo Prefecture, Kyoto Prefecture and Kyoto
City, among others.
1263.3 Resilient Cultural Heritage at the World Bank ‒ Learning from the Japanese Expertise ‒ 2017

2. Creating awareness through a practical approach ‒ the Resilient Cultural
Heritage TDD

The mentioned component 2, the Technical Deep Dive (TDD), was a learning event held in Tokyo andKyoto, from April 10 to 14, 2017, organized in collaboration with the World Bank Tokyo Development
Learning Center (TDLC), UNESCO, and R-DMUCH, among others. During that week, multi-disciplinary
teams from nine countries and several organizations shared experiences and learnt from experts, practical
Japanese examples, and site visits in Kyoto (Fig.1), about how to protect their cultural heritage in the faceof disasters, and create resilience in their sites.

Activities undertaken after The International Training Course by Former Participants

Fig.1 Visit to Kiyomizu-dera area in Kyoto, Japan.

The TDD was structured around six main themes, illustrated by Japanʼs good practices:i)

Fundamentals of disaster risk management for cultural heritage;ii)

Management of cultural heritage sites: from preparedness to post-disaster recovery;iii)

Addressing earthquakes and related secondary hazards over traditional buildings;

iv)

Addressing hydro-meteorological hazards, including storms and ﬂooding;v)

Engaging Communities to preserve cultural heritage;vi)

Connecting to Tourism: promotion and protection of heritage.

The nine countries participating (Albania, Bhutan, China, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Saudi Arabia,
Tanzania, and Uzbekistan) were represented by teams comprised of one World Bank staﬀ and one or two
government oﬃcials from the country. Among the professional proﬁles, there were urban specialists (21%),
national (25%) and subnational (18%) cultural heritage officials, local government leaders (18%), andDRM specialists (18%). Together, the projects from these teams represented more than US$700 million in127government-led investment, supported by the World Bank. And just like in Japan, their cultural heritage isvery much threatened by natural hazards.

Fig.2 A moment during the TDD at the World Bank Oﬃce in Tokyo.

Each participant team delivered an initial presentation about their country's institutional situation
regarding DRM and Cultural Heritage, and the main cultural assets included in their investment projects
along with the hazards threatening them. During the week they focused identifying their main challenges
and potential solutions based in the learning from Japan. The last day, each team presented an action plan
to implement the lessons learned in their ongoing projects, which was discussed together with a panel ofexperts and the rest of participants (Fig. 3 and 4).
Despite being very different countries and projects, participants identified common challenges andapproaches required, such as the lack of funding to invest in heritage, limited technical expertise,especially regarding restoration of heritage and maintenance, lack of regulatory framework andgovernance, and difficulty in engaging communities, creating awareness, and ensuring collaboration
between stakeholders from diﬀerent sectors.

Fig.3 Team working session during the TDD.

128

3.3 Resilient Cultural Heritage at the World Bank ‒ Learning from the Japanese Expertise ‒ 2017

Activities undertaken after The International Training Course by Former Participants

Fig.4 Participants presenting their Action Plans during the last day.

As previously noted, the TDD was based in a strong collaboration between different institutions andspecialists. In addition to the already mentioned, the TDD counted also with the participation of Toyama
City (Rockefeller Foundation - 100 Resilient Cities), and the United Nations World Tourism Organization(UNWTO) Regional Support Oﬃce for Asia and the Paciﬁc (RSOAP).

3. Moving forward ‒ Further knowledge development and operational support
The other two components of the Resilient Cultural Heritage program are currently under implementation.
Some of the TDD participant teams requested further support on specific needs for their projects. For
instance, Bhutan is organizing a workshop for this year 2018, and Myanmar is developing a DRM plan for
Bagan Archaeological site, both with support from DRM Hub/R-DMUCH; also, Albania requested explicit
information regarding landslide stabilization systems from Japan, while Uzbekistan requested support toimplement resilient tourism projects.
Regarding the knowledge development component, some materials are currently under preparation.
On September 16, 2017, the DRM Hub in Tokyo and R-DMUCH organized a Kick-Off Workshop for the
Knowledge Program on Resilient Cultural Heritage and Tourism at Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto. It
counted with the participation of experts from the World Bank, JICA, ACA, Hyogo and Kyoto Prefectures,
ICCROM, UNESCO, and the Universities of Loughborough, Tsukuba, and Yokohama City, as well as
participants from the ITC 2017 (Fig. 5).

Fig.5 Participants at the Kick-Oﬀ Workshop for the Resilient Cultural Heritage Knowledge Program.

The objective of the upcoming knowledge note is to provide guidance and operational insights to WorldBank teams and clients, by explaining the state of the art, experience, and practices on speciﬁc topics of
DRM for cultural heritage, highlighting the Japanese expertise. Speciﬁcally, the planned content focuses129around three main points: i) key elements of Japanʼs framework for DRM and Cultural Heritage, taking into
account the legal framework and analyzing the relevant institutions at national, regional and local levels; ii)
overall structure of DRM-Cultural Heritage Site Management in Japan, and speciﬁc cases of good practices
in DRM related to cultural heritage sites, analyzing diﬀerent Japanese examples of risk management for
speciﬁc primary and secondary hazards at cultural heritage sites; and iii) key role of communities in theprocess of establishing systems for DRM in cultural heritage sites, providing an overview of diﬀerent local
communities in Japan, and examples to eﬀectively engage and empower them to reinforce the protectionof their cultural heritage sites from disaster risk.

4. Looking to the future
Once again, I am finishing my article looking to new opportunities. The Resilient Cultural Heritage
Program, the first on this topic at the World Bank, is being a start point for many other initiatives. For
instance, a session developed in collaboration with UNESCO on Cultural Heritage - an Engine for Social
Recovery, was delivered in the 3rd World Reconstruction Conference (WRC3) co-organized by GFDRR,
UNDP, EU, and ACP, in Brussels, Belgium, on June 6-8, 2017. Likewise, a session on Cultural Heritage isbeing planned for the upcoming Understand Risk Forum 2018 to take place in May 2018 in Mexico.
In the same line, the partnership of World Bank-UNESCO is strenghtening through the signature of the
MOU last July 2017, reflected in an upcoming publication on city reconstruction post-conflict/disasterwith culture as core. Also, a module on Cultural Heritage is under preparation for the second edition of theCity Strength Diagnostic, and this topic is also being considered for the GFDRR Recovery Hub.
To summarize the main idea from my experience, collaboration is the key to move initiatives and develop
projects on such challenging topic as DRM of Cultural Heritage. Every step counts and contributes tocreate awareness on the importance of linking Cultural Heritage and DRM. In my case, the resources andcontacts gained during the ITC are fundamental to keep moving forward this agenda in other contexts
such as at the World Bank.

References
1) World Bank: http://www.worldbank.org/
2) Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR): https://www.gfdrr.org/
3) DRM Hub in Tokyo: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/02/03/gfdrr-tokyo-hub4) Tokyo Development Learning Center: http://www.jointokyo.org/en/news/story/world̲bank̲holds̲
RCHTDD
5) World Reconstruction Conference 3: https://www.gfdrr.org/en/node/2788 Blog: Three countries
show why culture matters for post-conﬂict and post-disaster reconstruction and recovery: http://blogs.
worldbank.org/sustainablecities/three-countries-show-why-culture-matters-post-conﬂict-and-postdisaster-reconstruction-and-recovery6) Understanding Risk 2018: https://understandrisk.org/event/ur2018/7) City Strength Diagnostic: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/brief/citystrength8) GFDRR - Recovery Hub: https://www.gfdrr.org/recovery-hub
9) Innovating with the past: How to create resilience through heritage: http://blogs.worldbank.org/
sustainablecities/innovating-past-how-create-resilience-through-heritage[Photos: Barbara Minguez Garcia]

130

4 Report of the International Symposium“Working Internationally toward the Integrated
Protection of Cultural Heritage from Disasters”

4.1 Background and Objectives

Since the establishment of its UNESCO Chair in 2006, the Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural
Heritage at Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH) has annually conducted an International Training Course(ITC) as part of its UNESCO Chair Program on Cultural Heritage and Risk Management. This year, theNational Institutes for Cultural Heritage (NICH), which oversees the National Task Force for the Japanese
Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Mitigation Network (CH-DRM Net), has collaborated in the organizationof the 2017 ITC̶dealing comprehensively with integrated disaster risk management for movable andimmovable cultural heritage̶as well as an international symposium.
In this symposium, experts from international organizations such as UNESCO, ICCROM and ICOM, andWorld Bank will join with Japanese specialists from various domestic institutions to discuss past andcurrent activities and to consider future initiatives to protect cultural heritage from disaster.

132

4.2 Programme

13:00 ‒ 13:20

Opening Remarks

Kozo WATANABE (Vice President, Ritsumeikan University)
Johei SASAKI (Executive Director, Kyoto National Museum)

13:20 ‒ 13:50

Key Note Speech

13:50 ‒ 14:35

Final Presentation Report by ITC 2017 Participants

14:35 ‒ 15:00

Rohit JIGYASU (Professor, R-DMUCH)

World Bank DRM Hub Tokyo Knowledge Program on Resilient Cultural

Heritage and Tourism in Collaboration with Institute of Disaster Mitigation
for Urban Cultural Heritage

James NEWMAN (Disaster Risk Management Specialist, Disaster Risk Management
Hub, Tokyo, Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery,

15:15 ‒ 16:45 Panel Discussion

World Bank)

Moderator: Joseph KING (Director of the Sites Unit, ICCROM)

A. Introduction

Elke SELTER (Expert Emergency Response, Emergency Preparedness and Response
Unit, Culture Sector, UNESCO)“Introduction of PDNA Culture and Build Back Better by UNESCO”

Elizabeth KIRBY (Grants Development Specialist, Smithsonian Institution)“Introduction of Smithsonian and the Project of Disaster Risk Management for
Cultural Heritage”
Takeyuki OKUBO (Director, R-DMUCH)“Introduction of the Project of R-DMUCH and its Future Challenge”
Ken OKADA (Head, Promotion Oﬃce, CH-DRM Net, NICH)“Introduction of the Cultural Heritage Rescue in 2011 Earthquake and Tsunami”
Yasumichi MURAKAMI (Councilor, Hyogo Prefecture Board of Education)“The Experience from the Last Disasters and Heritage Manager System”

B. Discussion

Topic 1. Challenges of DRM for Cultural Heritage from Last Disasters (Response
and Recovery)
Topic 2. Preventions: What We have done by Institutional Level, National Leveland International Level?

Topic 3. What is the Next Challenges and the Roll of Institution andInternational Organization?

16:45 ‒ 17:00 Summary and Closing Address

Kenzo TOKI (Former Director, R-DMUCH)

133

4.3 Summaries

Opening Remarks 1: Vice President of Ritsumeikan University, Kozo WATANABE
Welcome to Ritsumeikan University. I am Kozo WATANABE,
Vice President of the university and Vice Chancellor of the
Ritsumeikan Trust.

Since the establishment of its UNESCO Chair in 2006, theInstitute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage at

Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH) has annually conducted an
International Training Course (ITC) as part of its UNESCO Chair
Program on Cultural Heritage and Risk Management. This is
the only UNESCO Chair in the world of which theme is disastermitigation for cultural heritage. Therefore we believe that thistraining course is one of the worldʼs best program in this ﬁeld.

This year, we invited 25 government officers and researchers
who are engaged and specialized in heritage preservation ordisaster mitigation from Japan and overseas. The 20 days theyspent together are not so long, however, I think it was a valuable

opportunity for all the participants, since they could have an Fig. 1 Opening Remarks by Kozo WATANABE
experience of formulating disaster risk management plans which respect to values of the cultural heritageand historic city in local context of their own country. I am sincerely grateful to all who gave very valuablelectures.

As a new challenge from this year, the National Institutes for Cultural Heritage (NICH), which oversees the
National Task Force for the Japanese Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Mitigation Network (CH-DRM Net), has
joined and collaborated in the organization of this international training course, dealing comprehensively
with integrated disaster risk management for movable and immovable cultural heritage. I, as ananthropologist, share this important idea to focus both on movable and immovable cultural heritage.
Mr. Sasaki, Executive Director of the Kyoto National Museum will give a speech later, and we also invite apanel from NICH for the panel discussion.
In this international symposium, some of the ITC2017 participants will give presentations on their disastermitigation plans as outcomes of the training. I am very much looking forward to it. Then in the panel
discussion, panels including international experts who gave lectures during the course will discuss pastand current activities and to consider future initiatives to protect cultural heritage from disaster.
116 trainees, who participated in this ITC in previous years from every corner of the world, brought backthe knowledge and experiences they gained through ITC and now they are actively working as leaders inthe ﬁeld of disaster mitigation for cultural heritage. Ritsumeikan sets a mid-term plan which aims to be a

global research university. This is one of the reasons why I am very proud of their success.
It is thanks to everyone who has been supporting this training course that we can hold this symposium
today. In addition, on behalf of Ritsumeikan University, I would like to express our sincere gratitude to the
support of NICH which enabled us to enhance the training course.
At last, I hope this symposium would be productive for all of you. Thank you for your kind attention.
In memoriam: Kozo WATANABE, the eminent professor and a vice president of Ritsumeikan University passed away on
December 16th, 2017. We express our deepest sympathy and respect to his memory.

134

4.3 Summaries

Opening Remarks 2: Executive Director of Kyoto National Museum, Jōhei SASAKII am SASAKI from the National Institutes for Cultural
Heritage (NICH), Executive Director of Kyoto National
Museum. I would like to give a brief speech as opening
remarks of this symposium.
First, I would like to express my sincere respect for

the efforts of R-DMUCH, which has been authorized
as a UNESCO chair, for continuing this International
Training Course on Disaster Risk Management for
Cultural Heritage.
Issues and research related to risk managementand disaster mitigation have been addressed andconducted on immovable heritage. This year, I am very
pleased that we can have the opportunity to discuss

manages CH-DRM Network focusing on movablecultural properties, joined this program as a co-organizer.
Now cultural heritage is facing various disasters, suchas earthquakes, tsunamis, and flood damage andlandslide disasters by heavy rainfall, and these arecoming one after another.
How we can protect cultural heritage from diversifying

disasters? In what kind of risk management process Fig. 2 Opening Remarks by Johei SASAKI
can damage be minimized? By gathering knowledge and information from each country and discussing
with each other based on our own experiences, we can accumulate know-how required to solve thoseissues regarding disaster risk management.

Cultural heritage objects have a long history, thereby they are very vulnerable without exception.
Accordingly we have to understand that cultural heritage is always facing risks. This is the reason why
disaster mitigation and risk management play very important role in the preservation and inheritance of
heritage.

I look forward to participantsʼ presentations as outcomes of this 20-day intensive course. I also hope that
this international symposium can suggest an important guideline for the future of disaster mitigation for

Report of the International Symposium“Working Internationally toward
the Integrated Protection of Cultural Heritage from Disasters”

issues on disaster mitigation of cultural heritage froma comprehensive perspective, as we NICH, which

cultural heritage.
Thank you very much for your kind attention.

Key Note Speech: Professor of Ritsumeikan University, Rohit JIGYASU
Lessons Learnt from Current Disasters

・ Movable / Immovable Heritage
We have witnessed many disasters around the world during recent years, such as Myanmar earthquake
and the Central Italy earthquake in 2016, and the series of earthquakes in Nepal, 2015. From thesedisasters, we understand that we are always facing disaster risks, and that cultural heritage also can be

victim of these disasters besides lives and livelihoods.
Although many heritage buildings and sites were damaged by these earthquakes, we also have to pay
enough attention to museums. In the case of national museums in Kathmandu, the storage area anditems stored inside were extensively damaged. It was very difficult to take those objects out, because
the building itself was badly damaged. From this case, we can learn how it is important to consider both
movable and immovable heritage.
135

・

Climate Change in Relation to Historic Cities

To d a y w e a l l k n o w t h a t t h e n u m b e rof disasters caused by climate changei s i n c r e a s i n g . F l o o d s , Ty p h o o n s a n dhurricanes are the examples to illustratethis. Flooding in the Balkans hit historicalurban areas in Croatia and Serbia. We haveto be concerned about disaster risks tohistoric cities since they are very vulnerable

to floods and other hydro-meteorologicalevents. In fact, climate change is a very
irregular and uncertain phenomenon. For
example, ﬂash ﬂoods, which hit Himalayan

region in 2013 causing widespread damage
Fig. 3 Key Note Speech by Jigyasu ROHIT
to cultural heritage were caused not only bya large amount of rainfall but also by the melting of glaciers. In addition, unregulated development along
the river ﬂood plains was also one of the vulnerability factors.

Another case of cloudburst in Leh region of Himalayas shows that vernacular constructions are sometimes
unable to adapt and adjust to the changes in climate, because heritage has as evolved as per local

climate characteristics. Traditional buildings in desert area are not resistant to heavy rains. Statistics showthat climate change is already happening and the situation is becoming worse by day, which implies
that cultural heritage is also becoming more vulnerable, necessitating the development of adaptation
techniques.
・Economic Impact

Another issue which we should pay attention to is the economic impact of disasters. Economic loss due todisasters is increasing many folds, especially in urban areas. With regards to cultural heritage, we should
focus not only on protection because of symbolism or identity attached to heritage, but also on theeconomic values associated with heritage through tourism revenues as well as livelihoods of communities
dependent on heritage. Therefore it is very important to consider economic beneﬁts of cultural heritage.

・ Urbanization
Urbanization is also a phenomenon that we can see everywhere in the world. Everyone knows that more

people live in urban areas than in rural areas. However, the pace of urbanization is considerably rapid
beyond our expectation, and this is happening remarkably in some cities of developing countries. The

point here is that many cultural heritage sites are located in urban areas. Therefore urbanization would
increase the vulnerability of heritage as in the case of Kyoto or Mumbai or Kathmandu.
・

Human Induced Disasters

In addition to natural disasters, human induced disasters are becoming more urgent concerns. A site in
Mosul, Iraq, which one of our previous participants had selected and worked on for his case study project

collapsed due to bombing. Unfortunately, the worst-case scenario that he had prepared for his casestudy (Alaa HAMDON, ITC 2014) was indeed realized. In yet another case in Syria, a world heritage site
was bombed and got totally destroyed. A world heritage site in Mali was also damaged due to internal
conﬂict, but fortunately, restoration work has been done with support from UNESCO. From these events,
we understand that human induced disasters such as conﬂicts are also issues we need to address throughdisaster risk management.

136

4.3 Summaries

How to Manage Disaster Risks for Cultural Heritage and Museums

・ Multiple Hazards
Through our international training course, we have advocated comprehensive multi-hazard framework

to manage increasing disaster risks to cultural heritage sites and museums. We can no longer understandand response to earthquakes, floods, and fires separately. Moreover, human lives, social and cultural

impacts and livelihoods should be considered together. In other words, we have to adopt a holistic view
towards disasters.
From the experience of disasters in Japan, we can easily imagine that earthquake should be considered inrelation to ﬁre. In the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011, tsunamis caused by the earthquake led to the
nuclear power plant accident. We learned a very important lesson that one disaster would bring about
secondary disasters.
・Complex Vulnerability

We should look not only at physical aspects but also at social and economic aspects of vulnerability. We
have to be reminded that vulnerability is a factor that creates environment due to which disasters are

・ Disaster Risks and Impact
When we think about disaster risks, we also have to think who are exposed to various risks. Many cultural

heritage sites are not just places where people are coming, but are also places where people live.
Therefore it is important to know who are exposed to the risks, what aspects of the site are exposed andthe reason for exposure.
Of course, we also need to consider risks to cultural heritage comprehensively by taking account into
potential impact on peopleʼs safety, economy, daily lives and social structures. I believe that cultural
heritage should be the mainstreamed into disaster risk management. We cannot expect eﬀective disasterrisk management for cultural heritage if it is considered in an exclusive manner.

・ Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Cycle
Ideas mentioned so far leads to the concept of Disaster Risk Management (DRM) cycle for cultural heritage.

This is what we have been developing and revising for years, and in fact this is the basic concept of ourinternational training course. This cycle consists of three phases; 1. Before, 2. During and 3. After disasterand each of these phases corresponds to the following steps; 1. Prevention and Preparedness, 2. Response
and 3. Recovery and Rehabilitation.

Various aspects should be considered when we think about each of those phases. It starts from risk
assessment from a comprehensive perspective, then moves on to risk prevention and mitigation

Report of the International Symposium“Working Internationally toward
the Integrated Protection of Cultural Heritage from Disasters”

likely to happen. Therefore disaster risk management should aim at reducing vulnerabilities.

measures, and facilities and equipment suitable for emergency response at the cultural heritage sitethat can be effective in reducing disaster risks. Meanwhile they should very sensitive to the special

characteristics of the place and not spoil values of cultural heritage. We have to investigate how to design
them, what kind of equipment to install, how to secure the access to evacuation routes, how to organize
an emergency response team within the cultural heritage site or museum, how to carry out emergency
drills and so on.

At the earliest stage of disaster emergency, lifesaving must be the ﬁrst priority. However, after human lives
have been saved we have to start rescuing damaged cultural heritage with careful consideration about

the process with minimal impact on the values. Damage assessment and emergency protection measures
should be undertaken in the intermediate phase. During the following recovery phase, more detailed
damage assessment is required for restoration and repair works. After that, recovery and rehabilitation
takes place.
This is an essential idea that we should keep in our mind when we implement disaster risk management

137

for cultural heritage. It is also the philosophy of our training programme. What is important is that

we do not wish to return to the same situation as before the disaster. Rather we must achieve better
preparedness for the next disaster. This is exactly what the phrase ʻBuild Back Betterʼ means and it also
should be applied for disaster management of cultural heritage for reducing vulnerability while retaining
the heritage values to the best possible extent.
International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage

・ Objectives
What I have been taking about so far is the background of the international training course that we havebeen conducting over last 12 years. The objective of this course is to provide interdisciplinary training
for professionals from both disaster management and cultural heritage fields. This training covers

comprehensive risk assessment and integrated risk management for cultural heritage. As the idea of DRM
cycle shows, through this course participants learn what is to be done at each phase; before, during andafter disasters.
In addition, we emphasize that it is very important to formulate disaster risk management plan that

corresponds to the local context. Japan is a leader in this ﬁeld, and we can see a lot of good examples
which demonstrate respect for local characteristics in urban planning, disaster mitigation plan, andinstitutional systems for disaster risk management of cultural heritage. During the course, the participantslearn the methodology as well as more practical skills.
・

ITC Family as a Scientiﬁc Network

The greatest achievement of this training course is establishment of an international scientiﬁc network.
The network developed through this course, we call ʻITC family,' is very powerful and becoming larger

every year. The experts take advantage this network and constitute their scientiﬁc exchanges at global,
regional and local levels in various contexts.
The target group of this course is not only people from cultural heritage ﬁeld. This is also an important
basic idea of this course that we aim to make them cooperate and work together with professionals fromdisaster risk management. It is not easy in practice, because they have diﬀerent knowledge and skills, anduse deferent vocabularies. Therefore, in order to achieve disaster mitigation for cultural heritage, theyneed to learn how to communicate and learn from each other.
Based on this concept, we select almost the same number of experts from both sides every year; half from

cultural heritage and the other from disaster risk management. At the end of the course, we find thatthey understand and communicate with each other very comfortably. I believe that this is the best way tomove forward for disaster mitigation of cultural heritage.

・ Course Contents
Here I would like to introduce how this training course is organized. Participants learn development

process of disaster risk management plan of cultural heritage. Basic terminologies, theoretical frameworks
and methodology is introduced. Of course, we think that it is very important to learn from Japanʼs richexperience in this area. This year, we visited Kobe and Kumano, and we had lectures and site visits there
which cover both aspects of cultural heritage and disaster management.
Additionally, we conducted exercises and workshops on disaster risk management planning based onthese site visits. Case study project is very important component of this programme. As part of the casestudy projects, participants prepare outline of disaster risk management plan for the cultural heritage siteor museum which they selected from their own country. They formulated the plan based on related data
they collected and mentoring by the lecturers. After this training course, they will bring it back to theirown country.
During the course lecturers from Japan and overseas, who have excellent skills, knowledge andexperiences, provided meaningful and useful lectures. Each of them is a specialist in a specific field,
138

4.3 Summaries

such as landslide and earthquake mitigation. We also had lectures based on practical experiences, fromlecturers who were personally involved in disaster emergency response in Nepal and who have beenworking for international organizations such as UNESCO and ICCROM. Participants were able to acquire
much knowledge through these lectures
Moreover, we strategically focus on having interactive workshops. Participants of this training course are

not students, but resource persons themselves. They have knowledge and skills to be shared. That is why
it is important for them to communicate each other for better understanding of ideas and concepts in thisarea. In other words, this course should be participatory programme rather than series of lectures just to
be listened.
I would like to introduce an interesting role-playing workshop we carried out during the course. The given
situation is as follows. A construction business owner who is in charge of recovery is planning to make a
lot of money. Other stake holders are also engaged in the process of decision making. In such competing
situation, how can we give space for heritage? We tried to introduce the participants to the realistic

situation in which they are supposed to come up with various options for possible solutions.
We also conducted many exercises simulating emergency situation where we need to rescue damaged

I was very happy that we could have those exercises this year for the ﬁrst time with support from Kyoto
National Museum. Through these exercises, we could learn new skills which were actually useful andpractical for disaster mitigation for cultural heritage.
Another good experience was onsite demonstration on the design and usage of ﬁre hydrants in a historic
district in Kyoto. We also could learn how local community get involved and cooperate for disastermitigation work. In Ponto-cho, another historic district, we could directly listen to the community leader

how the local people behaved when a ﬁre occurred.
We also visited Kumano area famous for its World Heritage Site “Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in theKii Mountain Range” and learned about landslide disaster, especially focusing on acceptable interventions
for mitigating disasters. Participants were very open-minded and had very active discussions on various
issues such as decision-making methods which consider values of cultural heritage, costs and sustainableintervention.

This is indeed a very intensive training course and we encourage participants to work hard especially for
preparing outline of disaster risk management plan for their selected sites. On the last day, they gave apresentation on their own DRM plan.
Participants developed proposals for pilot projects in their own countries after returning from the course.

This course is not something that ends up here, but this course is indeed the starting point. Previous
participants continue their eﬀorts by carrying out their eﬀorts for disaster risk management of cultural

Report of the International Symposium“Working Internationally toward
the Integrated Protection of Cultural Heritage from Disasters”

cultural heritage. We do not sit in the room and face to a computer if such situation actually happens. So
in fact, we went out and did exercises by our hand.

heritage in their countries.
I have been talking much about our

training course so far, but I think themost important aspect of this courseis that we experienced and enjoyedfantastic and beautiful Japaneseculture together throughout the three
weeks as a result of which we havemade strong social bonding between
the participants and resource persons.
With this social bounding, they cancooperate and support each otherwhen disaster happens. In fact, former
participants have been cooperating Fig. 4 Pictures of ITC 2017 Participants by Rohit JIGYASU
139

in many occasions. Thus, we regard development of social relations as a very important part of thisprogramme.

・ ITC Participants
I would like to show you the statistics from past 12 years. 127 people from 56 countries participated thistraining course and the ITC family deﬁnitely became a large network over the years with participants fromall the continents.

For the ﬁrst year, we received only 8 applications in Asia and all of them were selected for participation.
This year, we got 235 applications and 11 out of them were selected. It was highly competitive process bywhich we could have applications not only from cultural heritage sector, but also from other sectors suchas civic society groups, national and local government representaties from development and disaster risk

management ﬁelds.
During the formative years, applications for the course were received from very few countries, but wehave been making eﬀorts to encourage people from various regions to apply although the number ofpeople who can be selected is small.
・This Yearʼs Theme“Integrated Protection of Immovable and Movable Cultural Heritage from Disasters”
This year, we have 11 participants from 11 countries and 2 observers as well. As I mentioned earlier,this year we focused on integrated protection of movable and immovable cultural heritage. This is an
important area on which we have made little progress so far. Although museums around the world
have been making efforts, it was just within the scope of their own sphere limited only to the field of
movable cultural properties. However, once a disaster occurs, it does not matter, whether it is movable or
immovable heritage. People involved in each ﬁeld must take actions by considering both movable as wellas immovable components of heritage. So, we need to think about the linkage between them.

Here I would like to introduce an actual example showing the importance of considering movable andimmovable heritage in an integrated manner. When a big earthquake struck Nepal, a very importantmuseum in Kathmandu was suﬀered. At that time, there was a big challenge. Engineers were thinking
only about buildings, while curators responsible for the museum were thinking only about the collections.
In fact, the museum had very important collection belong to the ﬁrst Nepalese dynasty, and in salvaging
collections from the historic palace building, they were confronting challenges, where and how those

items were located, how they can access to the items and how they handled and rescued the objects.
Due to many challenges encountered in this process, it became clear how cooperation between building
experts and museum experts was important. At the same time, it became clear how important it was toshare necessary strategies beforehand, in case such a situation occurs.
Let me introduce another case in
Nepal after the earthquake. It is

not a monument, it is an ordinary
traditional residence, which isimportant for the people living
there. (Fig. 5) Especially thewindows are a very importantpart of their identity. Therefore,

even though the house itself was
to be rebuilt because of damages
caused by the earthquake, theyused the same windows attachedto the previous house for thereconstructed new house. In this Fig. 5 A Picture of Heritage Residence on Kathmandu by Rohit JIGYASU
140

4.3 Summaries

case, when it is attached to a building, it is a part of immovable heritage, while in the process of removing

and reattaching, it can be movable heritage. However, we do not actually divide this by movable or
immovable. This also shows the importance of thinking about movable and immovable heritage in an
integrated way, and this is indeed what we are supposed to take up in our training programme.

・ Follow-up Activities
I would like to talk about the follow-up activities of ITC that we have carried out during past few years.
Some of former participants brought back the knowledge gained through the training here and actuallyconducted training programs in a leadership position in their own country. This initiatives has been totally

led by the former participants. Although we cannot give them ﬁnancial support, we extended all possible
technical support to them. Therefore we cooperated and worked together by teaching at the follow up
course held in diﬀerent countries. In this way, by continuing to support activities after the training, it ispossible to further disseminate the knowledge.

In terms of dissemination, we have published some material based on training programs such as trainers'
guide. We also publish annual reports and proceedings based on disaster risk management plan for・

Achievements

In the end, I would like to summarize what we have managed to accomplish. First of all, we were able
to create a powerful global network of experts involved in academic exchange and support to protect

cultural heritage from disasters. The ITC alumni have built initiatives through trainings, awarenessworkshops and projects in their own regions and countries. In addition, we have developed case study
project as a learning tool aiming at wider dissemination. Finally, with the support of internationalorganizations such as UNESCO and ICCROM, we have promoted the mainstreaming of cultural heritagein broader disaster risk management through exchanges between participants in the fields of cultural
heritage and disaster risk management. In the "Sendai Framework" on disaster risk management adopted

in March 2015, we can see that disaster mitigation of cultural heritage is now understood as an importantsector, which supports our eﬀorts in this area.
・

Our Missions

Although we have been doing many things, there are still many challenges to be solved.
Disaster risk management of movable and immovable heritage is the theme that we considered this year

for the ﬁrst time, but in addition to this, I would like to add consideration for intangible cultural heritage.
We have just started exploring this area.

Report of the International Symposium“Working Internationally toward
the Integrated Protection of Cultural Heritage from Disasters”

case study projects which participant develop each year. In this way, we disseminate the knowledge
accumulated in this training for the future.

Likewise, cultural heritage and natural heritage are also areas where cooperation is necessary. We cannot
think of culture and nature separately. In fact, international initiatives are trying to handle them all in an
integrated way, and we need to link these with disaster risk management.
Furthermore, in cooperation with private military organizations and humanitarian support organizations,

we should concentrate on connecting post-disaster response and recovery of cultural heritage withdisaster risk reduction. We cannot overlook the complexity of disasters and therefore should consider
not only natural disasters but also human induced disasters such as conﬂicts and terrorism. Under suchcircumstances, we are required to strengthen scientiﬁc network of professionals for further cooperation toadvance the cause of disaster risk management of cultural heritage. We also believe it is very important toestablish a certiﬁcation system for experts of disaster risk management of cultural heritage at national andinternational levels. When people complete such training, they must get advantage when they look forjobs by arming them with practical skillsets during the course.
Our mission is still going on. I would like to expand the ITC family, not only by involving more resource
persons, but also by adding new issues that we confront these days. Thank you for listening.
141

Final Presentation Report by ITC 2017 Participants

Three representative participants made a presentation of each disaster risk management plan and pilot
project which has been studied through the ITC 2017. The contents of each presentation are described inchapter 2. “Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2017 Participants”

Fig. 6 Khin Aye YEE (Myanmar, Chapter 2.11)

Fig. 7 Innocent Hudson MANKHWALA (Malawi, Chapter 2.5)

Fig. 8 Abner Omaging LAWANGEN (Philippines, Chapter 2.2)

Engaging Japanese and Global Expertise for Resilient Cultural Heritage throughDevelopment FinanceJames NEWMAN
Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Specialist , Coordinator, World Bank DRM Hub, Tokyo
Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR)

Thank you very much to Ritsumeikan University and the organizers for asking me to speak today andspecial thanks to the excellent presenters from Myanmar, Malawi and Philippines. For Myanmar, I am
personally delighted to see the presentation of Ms. Khin Aye YEE (ITC 2017), my colleague at the World

Bank, who is working to engage DRM and cultural heritage in our work around the world.
My name is Jay Newman, coordinator of the World Bankʼs Tokyo DRM Hub. At the DRM Hub, we help

developing countries integrate DRM into their development planning and investments and connect
Japanese and global expertise to their projects. I am also very lucky to lead a knowledge program on
Resilient Cultural Heritage, focusing on capturing Japanʼs experience in this area.
Iʼd like to leave you with three key messages here today:
1.

142

Importance of Integrating DRM and Cultural Heritage: The work that you, as students of the ITC
2017, have completed here at Ritsumeikan University and that you, as practitioners of resilient
cultural heritage around the world, are doing in your professional capacities is critical. These
important skills are safeguarding essential treasures and traditions against the ever-present risks,

4.3 Summaries

and I am delighted to see the depth and reach ofthis program. In fact, as Dr. Jigyasu pointed out,
the Sendai Framework explicitly notes the need2.

to protect cultural heritage, and the ITC is an
important contribution to this agenda.
Disaster Risks are Growing and put more Cultural
Heritage at Risk: It is the point that Dr. Jigyasu

mentioned earlier, but I would like to emphasize
again. Every year, 26 million people are pushed
into extreme poverty by disaster and climate risk1.

Moreover, due to the impact of climate change, it

is expected that this number will increase to 100
million by 2030. The eﬀects are growing, as climatechange exacerbates hazards and urbanizationand economic development put more people and3.

heritage remains very much at risk.
Connecting Expertise to Development Finance

Can Make the Difference: Finally, connecting
expertise, good practice, training and capacity

building to development finance can be catalyst Fig. 9 A Presentation of James NEWMAN
to greater resilience of cultural heritage sites. Without ﬁnancial support, through government,
development partners, and the private sector, the plans and eﬀorts we make will likely not havethe scale of impact we seek.

World Bankʼs Support for Mainstreaming DRM: For the World Bank and GFDRR, DRM has proven a criticalaspect of sustainable development. You can see this in the World Bankʼs work to support developing

countries with risk identiﬁcation, resilient infrastructure, preparedness, ﬁnancial protection, among manyother areas. In fact, the World Bank invests nearly US$5 billion dollars per year, a dramatic increase overthe last several years.
How to integrate DRM and Cultural Heritage in Development Projects: Protecting cultural heritage fromdisaster and other risks is part of this effort, and should be considered in an integrated manner. There
are many ways that development support can make this happen. In some project contexts, it is aboutbuilding capacity in disaster management agencies to take on the unique challenge of cultural heritage
sites, so they can respond and protect these sites and engage the local management teams in their

Report of the International Symposium“Working Internationally toward
the Integrated Protection of Cultural Heritage from Disasters”

assets in harmʼs way. For the same reasons, cultural

emergency response mission. In other cases, there is work to be done to retroﬁt cultural heritage buildings
from seismic risk and encourage authorities to invest in ﬂood risk management and slope stabilization ‒ensuring that the cultural heritageʼs integrity.
Japanʼs Unique Place in this Expertise:

In connecting DRM and cultural herita geefforts, Japan stands at the forefront. Japanʼsculture of preparedness ‒ from business
continuity plans to recovery planning ‒ is also

on display at cultural heritage sites aroundthe country. There is a large seated Buddha
Daibutsu near the sea in Kamakura. It wasconstructed in 1252, faced a tsunami in 1498,
1

Hallegatte, Stephane; Vogt-Schilb, Adrien; Bangalore, Mook; Rozenberg, Julie. 2017. Unbreakable : Building the Resilience of
the Poor in the Face of Natural Disasters. Climate Change and Development;. Washington, DC: World Bank. © World Bank.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/25335 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.

143

has been shaken by numerous earthquakes, and still stands there to this day. What is incredible is that thissiteʼs managers actually featured a point-by-point description of exactly how they had rehabilitated theDaibutsu over the years, showing how they separated the neck from the base of the body in order to allow
a seismic isolation. This is incredible documentation that shows the value that Japan has in this area.
World Bank Resilient Cultural Heritage Technical Deep Dive: It is for this reason that we held a Technical
Deep Dive (TDD) on Resilient Cultural Heritage and Tourism2 in Japan in April 2017. Nine teams of WorldBank clients and staﬀ ‒ representing US$700 million in World Bank-supported projects in Albania, Bhutan,

China, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Tanzania and Uzbekistan - learned from Japanese andinternational experts about innovative techniques and approaches to protect their cultural heritage fromnatural hazards. These countries together have 85 world heritage sites, 193 in the tentative list, over 275
world-renowned sites, but are very much in the face of disaster. In total, they have 11 million people

exposed to ﬂooding every year on average, and 1.5 million people expected to be in a 6.0 earthquake orhigher in a given year.
The TDD allowed us to bring clients, teams, and experts from diﬀerent perspectives. In our case, it was
urban specialists, local government leaders and officials, national cultural heritage officials and DRM
specialist. By bringing together this mix, they are able to work together to seek the technical, policy, andfunding solutions needed to protect irreplaceable cultural heritage. Japanʼs Agency for Cultural Affairs(ACA), UNESCO, R-DMUCH, Kyoto prefecture, Kyoto city and Hyogo prefecture were critical experts
contributing to these countriesʼ search for solutions.
The Success and Promise of the ITC Network: Before todayʼs symposium, I was pleased to participate in

the wrap-up session of the ITC participantsʼ action planning. This culminated from your research and hard
work over the last few weeks. I look forward to see how you are able to connect DRM and CH disciplines,
apply DRM practices in new ways to your work, and engage a creative mix of ﬁnancing solutions to ensure
the resilience of cultural heritage in your work. Since I am pleased to call many ITC alumni my World Bank

colleagues, as well as clients, I know the potential that you all have and look forward to working withmany of you on this for years to come.

Panel Discussion

Moderator: Joseph KING (Director of the Sites Unit, ICCROM)

Joseph KING:Thank you for Joining us for this second
half of this important symposium on
working internationally to integrated
protection of cultural heritage fromdisasters. This is a very important theme,
and ICCROM is very proud to be partnerin this program. ITC is very important and
ICCROM would expresses its gratitude

to Ritsumeikan University, Institute ofDisaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural

Heritage (R-DMUCH), which establishedthis course and have been carrying Fig. 10 A Panel Discussion

it out for past twelve years. I would like to thank Professor Takeyuki Okubo who is the director of theinstitute and would especially thank Professor Kenzo Toki, who is the guiding spirit of everything what
we do, and we have done last twelve years. ICCROM as an institution is grateful to Professor Toki, and I
as a professional and a person am very grateful to Professor Toki for his contribution. In addition, for thisparticular addition of the course, we formed a knowledge partnership with National Institutes for Cultural2

144

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/12/19/world-bank-holds-resilient-cultural-heritage-and-sustainabletourism-tdd-in-tokyo-and-kyoto

4.3 Summaries

Heritage of Japan, which has broad additional insights and expertise in relation on movable cultural
heritage and I would like to thank Kyoto National Museum who has been actively involved in this work.
Each panel members will make short introduction for 5 minutes and after those opening statements, wewill have a discussion on three topics related to learning from past, what we need to do in present and weneed to do in the future. Afterwards, we will have a discussion among panelists, leaving 10 minutes of theend to allow questions from the audiences. If this is agreeable to everyone, I would like to turn over to theﬁrst speaker who is Elke Selter from UNESCO.

Elke SELTER (Expert Emergency Response, Emergency Preparedness and Response Unit, Culture Sector,
UNESCO)“Introduction of PDNA Culture and Build Back Better by UNESCO”

Good afternoon everyone. First of all, thank you very much to Ritsumeikan for inviting me and having
given me this opportunity. As Joseph said, I have 5 minutes to talk to you about the things the UNESCO

does, in terms of Cultural Post Disaster Needs Assessments (PDNA). I chose this because of two reasons:ﬁrst, the PDNA is a very concrete example of how an organization like UNESCO can help governments, and

The PDNA is a methodology developed by the World Bank, the United Nations, and European
Commission, which has been adopted by a lot of donors and NGOs. It is a multi-sectoral approach,which means that this is not a cultural methodology. It also applies to education, housing, infrastructure,telecommunications, etc. and the chapter on culture was added in 2013. This is very positive, because itmeans that culture is part of a much broader system.
The PDNA methodology helps to assess needs, to qualify and quantify those needs and to formulatea framework for recovery. And it is quick - we normally do this within the ﬁrst one or two months after
disaster - and it is quick is because the PDNA feeds into the humanitarian Flash Appeals. Those FlashAppeals are what you may have seen, when after a disaster the international community comes together
with the government, and presents needs for recovery, expressed ﬁnancially. This is one of the reasons it isvery important for culture to be in the PDNA: because it relates to funding.
Probably the main strength of the PDNA is that it is very broad. It looks at the culture sector far beyond

built heritage. Rohit already mentioned how this program is trying to move beyond built heritage,
the PDNA is a good example, because it covers built heritage but also movable heritage, institutions,intangible heritage, cultural and creative industries ‒ such as crafts, the ﬁlm industry, music industry, etc and also the culture ministry, culture authorities. These last ones have an important role in recovery, so it isimportant to keep them in mind when you look at the impact of a disaster on the culture sector.
In the PDNA, all these aspects of the culture sector are assessed according to four dimensions. Together

Report of the International Symposium“Working Internationally toward
the Integrated Protection of Cultural Heritage from Disasters”

second, it is about data collection about assessing needs, and as such forms the foundation for what we
do in recovery.

the different aspects of culture and the 4 dimensions form a matrix of data. The four dimensions are:
1. Cultural assets (These are the heritage buildings, institutions like museums, objects and intangible
traditions). 2. Access to those assets (Can be a tradition be practiced? A museum be visited? And a site bereached?). 3. New risks and vulnerabilities associated with the disaster (Has your heritage been exposed

to new risks, become more vulnerable after the disaster?). And ﬁnally, 4. Governance and decision-making
processes (which is related to the management of the sector).

In principle, the PDNA is an assessment that is coordinated by the government. In practice, who takes thelead, depends on how much the government itself has been aﬀected by disaster. There have been quite afew occasions where organizations like UNESCO were asked to take the lead and work in partnership withthe government.
I will simplify the process because it is quite complicate methodology: We can look at four main steps. We
start with data collection on the pre-disaster and post-disaster situation. These data are then compared
to assess the aﬀects and impact of the disaster. Step 2 is calculating the direct eﬀect of the disaster. We

145

do that by looking at damage and losses in terms of material damage and economic ﬂows. Thirdly, we

analyze the indirect impact which covers both macro-economic and human development levels. And
ﬁnally, we make broad recovery plan with clear priorities and sequence in short medium and long term.

At the conclude, I just want to express why the PDNA is in my view very important.
- Above all, it is very comprehensive. We have extremely little tools that look at the culture sector as awhole. UNESCO has culture conventions, and it is very hard, even working within UNESCO to bring theseconventions together.
- The PDNA is also quick.
- It provides access to recovery funds. This means that it provides culture authorities and culturalorganizations access funds. These can be international funds or local funds. There are a lot of cases where
after a disaster the government recovery funds goes the ministry of health, the ministry of infrastructureand so on. Culture ministries often face a lot of problems to access that kind of ﬁnancing. The PDNA helps
to make this easier.

- And ﬁnally, it is a multi-sector assessment, which is an excellent step for culture to be better integrated
with humanitarian response and recovery.
Thank you.

Elizabeth KIRBY (Grants Development Specialist, Smithsonian Institution)“Introduction of Smithsonian and the Project of Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage”

First of all, Iʼd like to say the power of museum, its biggest super power is ability to remember the people.
What the Smithsonian Institution holds are the triumphs, the diﬃculties, and the connections to the world

for the American people. When we started put in together to the Smithsonian Cultural Rescue Initiative,
we decided what we wanted to do was overlaying successful structure preservation on to cultural heritage
recovery. Today I am going to talk about four approaches and some of projects that attached each of
those.

The first one is response. This is an incredibly important work because we believe that preserving andunderstanding past is the way of inspiring people to create the better future. Whenever the project is thesaving cultural heritage of Syria and Iraq, our goal is to provide Syria and Iraq colleges with conservationmaterials and training with the whole we can help them salvage in the sites. This is Maʼarra Museum, you
can see here we have stakeholders who had applied a glue to the mosaic, and putting the protected paper
over it. Then they stocked sand bags against to the protected paper. And unfortunately, the museum was

hit by battle bomb at June 15th, but fortunately because of these mitigation measures, the mosaics were
survived. We also as a team went out to Nepal Earthquake, and join the entire international assessment
team. We gave an advice on stabilizing building, salvaging and rehousing objects on documentation. We
also conducted training for the staﬀ of ministry of culture, and training for the Nepal police and Nepal

army. After the response, Smithsonian Cultural Rescue Initiative, we continue doing research on helping
speed recovery, and how we can better prepare for responders to react in emergency. We donʼt want tolose the valuable lessons to be learned fromthis difficult time. We Smithsonian initiative

department joins forces and the rescue project
to how prepare local stakeholders, when thecity moved to be safe and move to whenbegan recovery on the sites. This is a group of

stakeholders participate in the ﬁeld exercises tolearn when we ﬁrst go there. We also working
with them on implementation plan. (Fig.11)
The second one is a raising awareness forthe new audiences who may not understand Fig. 11 A presentation slide (copyright: Elizabeth Kirby)

146

4.3 Summaries

cultural heritage and its importance. We were able to put together a small ten panel museum exhibit thatis exhibited in two places on Capitol Hill, discussing the death of history and outright damaged cultural
heritage and cultural heritage risk in countries Syria and Iraq, and talking a little bit about mitigation
measures during the time congress was considering the protecting and preserving National Cultural
Property Act. We have also produced two guides for the military to take in when they begin to conduct
operations and areas where there is cultural heritage. The ﬁrst of them was guide of Mosul Heritage, whichis written in several languages, has pictures and has represented samples of what kind of culture that the
military can expect move to the area. We did that for the military operate them, and then they came to us
to ask for us to create the heritage guide to Raqqa.

We also do research on cultural heritage at risk. In June of 2016, we launched the Cultural ConflictResearch Network. Now we have all these partners working on what the root causes of why cultural
heritage is targeted during conﬂict what strategies we can use mitigation. And goal is developing large
data we can develop predictive ability.

And I am happy to say during the short period of the time, we have been able to involve 60
undergraduates, 13 graduated students and 5 post doctoral scholars in our on-going research. We also

participants from 17 countries. I would like to thank very much for the opportunity to present this work.
Thank you.
Takeyuki OKUBO (Director, R-DMUCH)“Introduction of the Project of R-DMUCH and its Future Challenge”
I would like to talk about the research outline of institute and what kind of research activities will be
carried out in the future. Everyone gathered here are people who interested in cultural heritage or disasterprevention. However, activities in the ﬁeld of disaster mitigation, science and engineering, humanities,

conservation of and cultural heritage have not been integrated well. It is a project that started in thehistoric city of Kyoto, to protect cultural heritage from disasters and pass it on to the next generation.
According to these objectives, we are working on several research projects. The first is technology
development. In addition, we are also focusing on the history of disasters. Historical townscape andcultural heritage have survived because they have overcome numerous past disasters. It is a study thatseeks to learn from the past how past disasters were overcome without modern technology, and utilize
these experiences for the future. We also undertake, advanced research not only on natural hazards but
also human induced disasters and those caused by animals. As a university institution, there are twopillars: "research" and "education". In order to conduct useful applied research, we are engaged in thefield study on actual disasters or cultural heritage sites. In terms of human resource development, ourReport of the International Symposium“Working Internationally toward
the Integrated Protection of Cultural Heritage from Disasters”

want to support resilience in heritage organizations. We were privileged to work on ICCROM ﬁrst aid for
cultural heritage crisis course and we were happy to host them at Smithsonian in 2016. We welcomed 21

mission is to educate not only young researchers and students, but also experts who have got trainedin this training course, and send them back to the site again. Combining these two pillars really helps incontributing to the society.
As reported by Professor Jigyasu, 127 people from 56 countries participated in the international

training courses during last 12 years. We also had received support from the Toyota Foundation andhave cooperated with the National Institutes for Cultural Heritage from this year. This shows thegrowing importance of this course and we respond to the growing needs by cooperating with various
international organizations, like ICCROM, ICOM, ICOMOS, World Bank and UNESCO, and by collaboratingwith various foundations and universities around the world.
For future research, our primary objective is to protect historic cities and cultural heritage from disasters
and pass them to the next generation. However, the way of thinking about disaster mitigation of cultural
heritage is changing gradually over time.. Therefore, we are trying to evolve the disaster prevention
culture around the world with our current technology and knowledge, and share the advanced147technology for protection of our cultural heritage from disasters.. Our team as a research institution,

continues to work on cultural heritage disaster mitigation since 2013. We would like to protect the life of
human beings ﬁrst of all, which leads to protecting cultural heritage. Thank you very much.
Ken OKADA (Head, Promotion Oﬃce, CH-DRM Net, NICH)“Introduction of the Cultural Heritage Rescue in 2011 Earthquake and Tsunami”
The National Institute for Cultural Heritage consists of seven organizations: four national museums, twocultural property research institutes and the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage
under the support of UNESCO. The National Institutes for Cultural Heritage is doing the core work ofbuilding a network for disaster prevention of cultural heritage in Japan. I would like to introduce what weare aiming for.

Japan is exposed to many natural hazards. Many disasters have struck during the last 30 years, especiallyduring last two or three years. It is unbelievable that there hasn't been a typhoon in Kyoto in the past
three weeks. There are many typhoons in this season indeed and there are reports that a typhoon will
come tomorrow.

The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake occurred in 1995. I think that many of you have visited Kobe,
and gained experiences from Kobès recovery. Kobe suffered big fires after the earthquake.. We also
experienced the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011. Nothing remained in the historic centre of
Ishinomaki city. This is an oﬀering box of a Japanese shrine. It was a huge problem to protect properties
inside of the museum whose walls have collapsed.
Rescue activities were carried out after that. This is a picture of museum staff gathering from all overJapan and rescuing properties. Here is a property list. This list is not from the museum. It is a copy fromanother place. We used the list in the rescue work. This is by a sculptor Funakoshi Yasutake. However, no
one knew him at that time. The deputy director of the art museum is an expert in Western art history who
is unfamiliar with Japanese art. Thankfully, we could start rescue work because we had this list with thepictures.
Rikuzentakata city was also greatly damaged. We carried properties from the museum to an elementary

school on the mountain and started emergency conservation work. Although the Great East Japan
Earthquake occurred on March 11, moving them to the elementary school ﬁnished in July that year. Some
properties were moved in April, but some artworks have been left for some reason. As you know, becauseof the nuclear power plant accidents in Fukushima, there were some areas we could not enter. We did a
study for one year to check how to enter the area and rescue the cultural properties. Conducted rescue
activities with participants from the Agency for Cultural Aﬀairs and various organizations, also with thecooperation of each prefecture as well as the association of art museums, , the National Art Museum,and the National Library, etc. There are also prefectural art museums and prefectural museums in thedisaster area where the people themselves are aﬀected by the disaster. Though their own building hall
was damaged, and museum staﬀ were among the victims, they played a core role in the rescue activities

as a local museum. In addition, the National Museum of Ethnology held an exhibition in July 2010 about
various earthquakes such as the Niigata Prefecture Earthquake. Their experiences had great inﬂuence on
the rescue activities in 2011. It is very important to learn from such experience and develop case studies
for learning.

There was a typhoon in August last year, and a library in the Tohoku area was damaged. The library staﬀ
had experience in the Rikuzentakata city rescue activities in 2011. So, they made a judgment soon thatthey would not be able to handle all the rescue work by themselves, and decided to send emails to ask forhelp around Japan. The reason that they could quickly respond was that they had experience in previous
disaster.
Next, Iʼd like to talk about future activities. I've talked about the fact that various organizations haveparticipated in rescue activities. In Japan there is a concept of nationally or prefecture-designated1484.3 Summaries

cultural properties. Those designated properties can receive salvage funding from national or prefecture
government. However, undesignated cultural properties, the government does not provide support. So,

it is necessary to promote cooperation with various organizations., Although fine rescue organization
structure is formed beforehand, it is diﬃcult to decide actual operationalization without experience of areal disaster. So we are making eﬀorts to build the network ﬁrst. In Japan, cultural heritage is deﬁned as
property because it is owned by someone. Because much is private property, we often don't know whatkind of cultural properties are in the area. When people lose their lives and buildings collapse in disasters,

the rescue of personal property is needed for recovery. In such situations, it may become difficult for
cultural property experts to expand rescue activity. So, it is important to let people know what kind ofcultural properties exist in the area. The most important thing for building cultural property networks is
to make people understand what regional cultural properties are the region, and then consider how to
expand the activity. Thank you very much.

Yasumichi MURAKAMI (Councilor, Hyogo Prefecture Board of Education)“The Experience from the Last Disasters and Heritage Manager System”

that the cultural heritage is a public property and the idea was submitted to the UN World Conference on
Disaster Risk Reduction.

The word "Build Back Better" came out of the Sendai Framework in 2015. In my opinion, it is an idea that
history and culture play a large role in the regional sustainability, and creative reconstruction after disasterwould be realized.. Another important thing suggested in the conference is that disaster prevention
should be based on people's thinking of the history and culture and the contribution of the community.

Building only new structures may erase the memory of people living in the area, so when we think about"Build Back Better", we need to deal with as people who are engaged in history and culture in order toprevent this kind of situation.
Secondary disasters such as ﬁre have also occurred in Kobe earthquake. We started rescue activities forprotecting the historical and cultural heritage from damage. And when repairing immovable properties,
we considered the earthquake resistance of buildings to prepare for future disasters, and developed a full-scale model of shaking table experiment equipment for evaluating its seismic performance on the realsituation. We are doing eﬀorts to make organization charts during these 20 years so that people can becollected quickly during disasters.
We educated about 400 architects in Hyogo prefecture, and more than 1,000 people from other ﬁelds.. We
have also prepared a map with location of cultural properties which can be linked to damage assessment.
Even private citizens can add information to it. It is important to prepare regularly and therefore disaster

Report of the International Symposium“Working Internationally toward
the Integrated Protection of Cultural Heritage from Disasters”

There was an earthquake in Kobe in 1995.We have engaged in various initiatives since then andimplemented an evaluation project during the 10th year 2005. At that time, we suggested the concept

prevention should be part of the usual activities.

Discussion

Joseph KING:I would like to ask some questions from myself and afterwards open the questions from the audiences.
And I would like to start with a question for Dr. Okada. It is very good to remind us all that we should think
not only about the cultural properties declared by law but in larger sense. You gave an example about thetreatment of cultural heritage after disasters. I am wondering if you can talk more about what the National
Institute for Cultural Heritage is doing before disaster happens to be able to protect the movable culturalproperty.
Ken OKADA:
We have various experiences in reducing damage in disasters. For example, in the case of museums, we

149

conduct studies on earthquake-resistant exhibitions and storage methods; and in the case of general
private cultural properties, we recommend owners to deposit them in the local museum, since it is moredangerous if they are placed in private houses. This process helps the researchers of local museums tobetter understand what kind of properties are in the area. A prefectural designated cultural property

burned down in Nagano a week ago. It was burned down in a ﬁre. Not only the staﬀ of the local museum

but also the staff of the Nagano Prefectural Museum knew that ancient documents were kept in thelocal museum and soon went out to ascertain the damage situation. From this case, we can see that it
is important to know what kind of properties are in the area. After the earthquake, we conduct researchon what would be technically necessary for the properties' recovery when mold grows days after getting

wet with water. One more example: in the ﬁre a week ago, Meiji era photographs (approx. 100 years old)
got wet from water from the fire hoses. So we asked photograph experts and learned that if ordinarywater was used, the photographs, can be recovered just by washing, but if they have been extinguishedby firefighting with chemical substances, then H2O chemically reacts causing negative impact on thephotographs when you wash them. So our staﬀ in Nagano prefecture immediately went to the ﬁre station
and asked what they used. We have accumulated such kind of experiences for over 20 years. There is a
"Emergency Response and Salvage Wheel" developed in the United States and translated into Japanese.
However, unfortunately this did not always fit well with the situation of actual disasters in Japan. We
would like to accumulate various experiences and work on technical issues as well.

Joseph KING:Thank you very much. Actually, my next question was to ask to Elke about community involvement in the
PDNA process.

Elke SELTER:
I think it is important to understand the PDNA is methodology only explains WHICH data have to becollected, but not HOW they have to be collected. In the past, there has been a tendency to send experts
to do a quick assessment, but we are slowly moving away from that and working much more strongly
together with the community, especially because the component of intangible heritage is gaining more
and more recognition. You cannot do an assessment of how the intangible heritage has been aﬀected bya disaster without of working with the community.

Joseph KING:Thank you. My second question to you is when you are doing PDNA, how much information on pastdisasters goes into community assessment work. And a lot of work goes into PDNA. I understand it is very
useful in short term for carrying out recovery eﬀorts but how is it also useful in a longer term for mitigating
future disasters?

Elke SELTER:
How much past disasters are reﬂected to PDNA? Actually, not so much. It is really focused on what justhappened. Past disaster information is only considered when looking at existing vulnerabilities or forrecovery planning, which has strong component of “Build Back Better”. So, the idea is that we cannot

not just “build back”. There has been damage, but rehabilitation should also take into account the whole
range the other risks that the area is facing, to reduce the impact of future disasters. Regarding how usefulthe PDNA is in the long term, of course we donʼt know, because the PDNA culture methodology only
exists since 2013, and we only started doing the ﬁrst PDNAs in 2014 and 2015. So we donʼt have a longterm perspective yet. However, in my view, it can be really useful because the value of the PDNA lies incollecting a very broad set of data on how the disaster has aﬀected the culture sector. Last when we didin Peru for an example, because we had a such good data, we recommended ministry of culture to put

150

4.3 Summaries

those data into a database system, to also use them access for future planning and as a basis for futureassessments. If a new disaster will happen, it can serve as comparable material.

Joseph KING:Thank you. Ok, my next question is to Elizabeth. I want to ask ﬁrst of all what you think are other ways

we can try to engage with military in a relation to post disaster emergency situations, and do we havefeedback from military on what kind of things they need, and they would have in post disaster situation.
Elizabeth KIRBY:

Yes, the Smithsonian actually hosted a meeting for a military group that kind of configure that very
interesting culture. And now holding the listening session with them and we also keep in touch withthem. And that session just happened about 3 weeks ago. And it was very interesting that the main thing
the military seem to be interested in, was how could they get information quickly about culture. As what

they said is they are looking at things they know this may be important, but how do we immediately
get feedback because they need to protect lives, it is important to hold that but how do we make that

Joseph KING:

This is good approach. But do think it is possible that the expert attend the military operation and give aquick advice to them, apart from that guide book?
Elizabeth KIRBY:

Yes, I think that probably the place to start is military themselves. Because a lot of them have travelled a
lot and become very interested in places they grow. And I think it is possible to start looking at the people
who are there, who are interested in culture. It would be good starting point.

Joseph KING:Thank you very much. Mr. Murakami talked about capacity building. Can you elaborate on theof
institutions and people whose capacity needs to be built in order to deal with disasters, before during andafter.
Yasumichi MURAKAMI:

In my experience, 70% of the buildings damaged in urban areas due to the Kobe earthquake. On the other
hand, we also worked on ﬂood disasters, but at that time, ancient documents and movable properties

Report of the International Symposium“Working Internationally toward
the Integrated Protection of Cultural Heritage from Disasters”

determination. So, it is very interesting that I think these guides are a sort of ﬁrst step to set up. We donʼthave yet information of impact, but I do know we were asked to print both guides.

rather than buildings were considerably damaged. Considering two cases, it is necessary to develop
human resources in the ﬁeld of architecture and arts and crafts. In the case of architecture, we educated400 people in Hyogo Prefecture, and 4000 people in the whole country. When the Tottori Earthquake
occurred last year, approximately one hundred people gathered in response to one e-mail. And weﬁnished the damage investigation of 80 to 90 buildings in 4 days including drawing and budget estimate.
One institution in each ﬁeld cannot prepare everything. Therefore it is important to create a system toexpand the network of various institutions and share information.

Joseph KING:You talk about architecture and architectural engineers, but other professional categories that can also
get themselves involved in post disaster damages assessment.

151

Yasumichi MURAKAMI:

There are about 1000 people in all, but about 600 people work in other fields such as arts and crafts,
buried cultural properties, ethnic cultural properties, planting trees and gardener, etc. Each ﬁeld has theirown NPO.

Joseph KING:My last question is to Professor Okubo. Since you talk about the research needs, and traditional andmodern technologies. If you donʼt mind my asking a bit more speciﬁcally if you could think about three ofimportant research needs. What are the three largest research needs you and Ritsumeikan University need
to be approach in the next 5 or 10 years.

Takeyuki OKUBO:
I think it is a very diﬃcult topic. Since we belong to Ritsumeikan University and also research institute,

we need to work harder on the research side than others. For the cultural heritage and the historical city,
the most important point of thinking about disaster prevention is how to improve disaster safety which

does not lose the cultural value. I think that there is a need for research as well. So, of course, we can use
advanced technologies that our Japanese are good at, but what we really want to pay attention to is
the wisdom of traditional disaster mitigation. Our predecessors have been making eﬀorts to reduce theimpact of disasters since long time. So, it is necessary to do evaluate it ﬁrst. If the eﬀect can be evaluatedobjectively, we can see the possibility of enhancing both disaster safety and cultural value. From the view
point of ʻBuild Back Betterʼ, it is important to properly evaluate traditional technologies since it is not only
necessary to return the cultural heritage to the original after the disaster, but as Sendai's framework also
indicated, it is import and to reduce vulnerability of cultural heritage to future disasters. I believe that if
such a thing can be done, it will become an asset for disaster prevention culture for the future.

Ken OKADA:
In a disaster many records and memories are lost. So, it is important to continue investigations on cultural

heritage and for which the value is already known, and to convey the information to the next generation.
In addition it is important to understand well what kind of information needs to be communicated.
Yasumichi MURAKAMI:

I think that it is necessary to make the property register for preservation and utilization of history andculture for each region.. In addition, as I mentioned in the whole plan, each organization has its own
characteristics: for example, the Smithsonian is very strong in the movables heritage field and the
Ritsumeikan University is very strong in the immovable heritage. I expect that the whole image will
come out gradually while exchanging information between such institutions. I hope that such kind ofinternational activities would be organized regularly to exchange information.
Joseph KING:Thank you very much. I think it is interesting that you highlight the movable and immovable and of course
I would like to also add tangible and intangible. And all of them would have to be integrated into thinking
planning. Thank you for raising.

Elizabeth KIRBY:
Whenever we look at cultural heritage and risk, I think it is good to find out root causes and develop
predictive abilities so that you can look far ahead into future and ﬁgure out things that are likely happen
and accordingly devise mitigation strategies. In terms of technology, I think it is very important to ﬁnd
people who understand GIS and cultural heritage, so that they can make good data bases.

1524.3 Summaries

Elke SELTER:

I would like to talk about the same topic looking at two points that we faced in PDNA. First, I think that
intangible heritage is the part of the sector that is the most far behind and we run into very concrete
problems, for example that we donʼt know how to design the reporting form to assess needs of theintangible heritage sector. And second, we need better data in the culture sector. For example, dataon in how far prevention really works for cultural heritage and what way. Also the kind of data thatprovide arguments that would make a stronger case for including culture and heritage in disaster risk
management. We talked about the example of Peru where thanks to PDNA we managed to come up withvery good figures that showed return-on-investment for the government on a program that invested
in preventive measures for archaeological sites. Even though that was unique example, it is probably
possible in many more contexts.
Joseph KING:Thank you very much for all those comments. We are left with 10 minutes for the audience to ask
questions to panelists.

My name is Alessandra, a Brazilian, student of World Heritage Studies in one of university of technology
in Germany. It is quite general question to any of the Japanese experts. I would like to ask about locationof resources after disaster situation for example, in a disaster situation, how is it ensured that money andpeople are invested in heritage instead of only building houses.
Yasumichi MURAKAMI:

I donʼt know whether it is appropriate, but in my experience, ﬁrst, we need to submit a rough estimation
for getting budget. It is very quick work that is done in three weeks for meeting deadline of budget

request. After that, detail budget needs to be prepared for individual cultural properties, and based onthat application form is submitted for funding. After that the budget will be allocated. This is the methodof designated cultural property. Meanwhile, in the case of the request of undesignated cultural properties,
we ask for donation to various people as well as institutions such as National Agency for Cultural Aﬀairs.
As a result a considerable amount of money will be gathered.

Ken OKADA:In the case of national designated property, the budget comes from the national government. In thecase of the prefectural designated property it comes from the prefectural government. There is nocase in which 100% funding is provided for heritage conservation in Japan. It is provided in increments

Report of the International Symposium“Working Internationally toward
the Integrated Protection of Cultural Heritage from Disasters”

Audience 1:of ten percent in the form of subsidies. There is a list made when the Agency gathers information indisasters. On the left side of the list there are the name of area, the name of the cultural property andthe number, and there is a column on the right side for the subsidy. It is carried out based on the list.
Regarding undesignated property, there is no subsidy, but in the case of large scale disasters such as theGreat Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake or the Great East Japan Earthquake, when many undesignated culturalproperties are seriously damaged, the methodology of PDNA is introduced: allowing staff to evaluate
damage quickly and report it to the administration, and soliciting a donations from citizens. It is still adeveloping method.

Audience 2:
I am Kai Weise, ICOMOS Nepal, and former participant of the course. I have a question to Professor Okuboin connection with the modern technology use. I think the question is how we approach the wholequestion of modern technology. Very often there are parallel discussions on conservation approach on

153

one hand and use of technology on the other,. And I have second question with respect to PDNA. Can we

consider the PDNA to cover the recovery plan? And do we have to clearly state that PDNA is not recovery
plan, and the recovery plan will have to be prepared after the PDNA. Thank you.
Takeyuki OKUBO:

In actual cases of disaster reconstruction various kinds of technology was used, and as a result the value of
cultural heritage is compromised. In order to avoid that, we would like to ﬁnd out what kind of technology
has been accumulated through history. Therefore, though various buildings, townscape, community
activities are included in the wisdom of disaster mitigation, it is important to choose a technology that has
successfully evolved through skills accumulated over time. Of course, there are cases where completely
new technology is needed. However, it is consider continuity of technology as well as the culture andtradition. Conversely, if the continuity of the technology can be secured, it would be impossible to apply
various modern disaster prevention technologies in most of the disasters. In such a case, technologies

accumulated in history will certainly mitigate damages. That is why, many cultural heritage and historic
townscapes have overcome lots of disasters. I think that it is very important for us not to be conﬁdent
about technology, but to properly understand the direction of technology and tradition that has been
accumulated so far, and thereafter introduce new technologies.
Yasumichi MURAKAMI:

Regarding advanced technology, we did evaluation test with traditional materials at the time of Kobe
earthquake. Finally, the best solution was implemented after examining the results of tests. Whenconsidering the future deterioration, we try to record our own way of thinking so that we can evaluate
whether it is good or not after decades. If there is no such trial, there will be no progress of human beings
as well. I think it is important to think about that balance.

Elke SELTER:
On the question whether the PDNA can be accepted with the recovery plan, the answer is “no”. The PDNA
is a needs assessment which lead to a product called a “recovery framework”. But the terms used are notthe issue. It should be very clear that the result of the PDNA is an assessment and a very broad plan thatcan serve as a basis for developing one or more detailed recovery plans. There is a separate methodology
for doing that. In my view it is important to understand the PDNA as a quick assessment, which results in a
broad overview, the impacts of the disaster on the culture sector and that will result in a broad frameworkthat outlines (broadly) the needs. It is not a detailed plan.

Summary and Closing Address: Professor of Ritsumeikan University,
Proﬀesor Kenzo TOKI

Kenzo TOKI:
I would like to introduce how ITC started. Because, I would like you to go back to your countries and start
the things that we did in Japan in accordance with the situation in your countries.

ITC began in 2006. The trigger was that in March 2004, a professor of Canadian university named Herb
Stovel came to Ritsumeikan University and discussed about our research center. He gave us the hint ofinternational training in that time. He is former Director of the Sites Unit at ICCROM, which is the same
position that Joseph King holds at present in ICCROM. Unfortunately, Dr. Stovel is no longer with us. Dr.
Stovel came to Ritsumeikan in March 2004, and in January 2005 the United Nations World Conference
on Disaster Reduction was held as an event of the 10 years memory of the Kobe Earthquake. I am adisaster prevention structure engineer involved in disaster prevention ﬁeld for about 50 years. However,I have never heard the word "cultural property" at Japanese or International conferences on disasterprevention. In addition, we got big fund from the national government in 2003 and made a team at154

4.3 Summaries

Ritsumeikan University to study
disaster prevention of culturalproperties. Dr. Stovel suggested

the international course when wewere thinking about what to do.
The big fund from the country
means that we need to make aworld-famous research facility
and to do a high-level education.
However, it is very difficult tosatisfy both objectives. Especially

graduate students who want
to study disaster prevention ofcultural properties rarely existed.
So, instead of educating Japanese Fig. 12 A closing address by Kenzo TOKI

As I mentioned earlier, we never heard the cultural properties in the international conferences on thetheme of disaster prevention. So, I was just chairing a domestic committee at that time, and I suggested

to Japan and to UNISDR indirectly that we need to make such a session. Cultural property disasterprevention was ﬁnally recognized and a thematic session was held during Kobe UNISDR World Conference
on Disaster Reduction. Afterwards since the training courses started in 2006, Dr. Jigyasu had to organize
this it was a hard work.

At that time, he just came to Japan and could not immediately understand the country. We carried out
such activities with the fund we got from government in 2003. It was a very competitive research fundthat almost universities in Japan applied and the representative should be the president of the university.
Initially, we could only choose 8 people because we had to pay travel expenses and accommodations ofpeople who came from abroad. At that time, there were only 8 entries and it was very easy to choose 8
people. However, this year, the competition has increased by25 times and this year we had to choose 11

people among 235 applications. The number of applicants have exceeded from 8 in 2006 to 230 people in2017. During this period, we received support from the Toyota Foundation for three years. When it ended

in 2016 and we were in trouble, the National Institutes for Cultural Heritage oﬀered to collaborate withus. I don't know what will happen in the future. However, we have been doing the course for 12 years. So
somehow, I think that we would like to continue conducting such course for 20 years at least. I am doing
projects in various places other than this one, and I have done some projects for more than 20 years. If

Report of the International Symposium“Working Internationally toward
the Integrated Protection of Cultural Heritage from Disasters”

students, we decided to invite experts in cultural properties and in disaster prevention around the world
based on Dr. Stovelʼs advice, to study and train together. It is the trigger of this training.

you work little hard you can do ten years, but if you try to do 20 years, you have to work very hard. I thinkprobably I am the oldest here. I'm sorry I spoke with so much pride and thank you for your understanding.
Finally, please let me just say one thing about "Build Back Better" that came out in the previous discussion.
It is an idea that was invented during very hard times in Japan. It is a word not familiar with culturalproperties. Japan lost in 1945 after the Second World War, and each year the typhoon and ﬂood attacked,
and the lives of 1,000 or 2,000 people were lost. It stopped in 1963. Why is it called Built Back Better?

During ﬂooding, the water overﬂows from the river, and the same thing happens if we recover things tothe original state. So, In Japan, we call for improved restoration. Therefore in the case of cultural heritage
you have to modify the original meaning slightly. Thank you very much.

155

Epilogue
This year, Japanʼs National Institutes for Cultural Heritage participated for the first time in the 12th

Ritsumeikan University UNESCO Chair Programme, International Training Course on Disaster Risk
Management of Cultural Heritage as a co-organizer together with the Institute of Disaster Mitigation for

Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University. Eleven trainees from Asia, South America, and Europe
participated in a rich program held over twenty days from August 28 to September 15, 2017, followed byan international symposium on September 16.

The National Institutes for Cultural Heritage (NICH) is an umbrella organization comprising the Tokyo,
Kyoto, Nara, and Kyushu National Museums; the Tokyo and Nara National Research Institutes for Cultural

Properties; and the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-PacificRegion. Tracing its origins back to the founding of the Tokyo National Museum in 1872, NICH is engaged

in the collection, storage, and exhibition of works of art, historical materials, and archaeological artifacts
that exemplify the culture and tradition of Japan, and it engages in research on such areas as the historyof art and architecture, archeology, and intangible cultural heritage. NICH also conducts research onpreservation principles and conservation techniques and materials using natural science methods,
thereby playing a leading role in the protection of cultural properties in Japan.

The Japanese archipelago is subject to frequent natural disasters occurring throughout the year, including

volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons, heavy rains, ﬂoods, and landslides. Sometimes entire

regions are destroyed. Such disasters bring with them the loss of lives and property; at the same time they
can also damage the cultural and historical heritage preserved and passed down in their localities.

The Great East Japan Earthquake of March 2011 inﬂicted the greatest damage of any Japanese natural

disaster in recent history on the Tohoku region and its surrounding areas. Not only was enormous damage
caused by earthquake-generated tsunamis, but the resulting nuclear power plant explosions forced the
mandatory long-term evacuation of residents over a wide area. This also caused dilemmas as to how to
rescue cultural assets remaining in the aﬀected areas.

The Cultural Properties Rescue Operations were established in response to an appeal from the Agency for
Cultural Aﬀairs. After the Agency for Cultural Aﬀairs sent a request for cooperation, a Salvage Committee
Secretariat was established within NICH. It oversaw recovery activities for disaster-affected culturalproperties over a period of two years. In addition to those from NICH, the Salvage Committee gathered

representatives from thirteen cultural property related organizations, including Japanese museum andlibrary organizations as well as cultural property related academic societies. It responded collaboratively
to prefectures that submitted requests for support to the Agency for Cultural Aﬀairs. At the end of thesecond year, in March 2013, the Salvage Committee held a symposium summarizing its activities andvowed to maintain its organization in preparation for damage to cultural properties caused by large-scale
earthquakes and tsunamis in the future.

In response to this, NICH launched the National Task Force for the Japanese Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk
Mitigation (CH-DRM) Network under a 2014 grant from the Agency for Cultural Aﬀairs. NICHʼs participation
this year as a co-organizer of the Ritsumeikan UNESCO Chair ITC is part of its CH-DRM Network activities.

It is worth pointing out that the salvage activities by the Committee for cultural heritage of the Tohoku
region beginning in 2011 targeted only movable heritage such as art objects, ethnographic materials,

historical materials, books, archeological artifacts, and natural history materials. Immovable cultural
heritage such as architectural structures, archaeological sites, and historical sites were conserved byother organizations. This division reﬂects the system of cultural property administration in Japan and was

not limited to the Great East Japan Earthquake: response is still carried out separately today for natural
disasters large and small.

When disasters impact protected buildings of historical and cultural value, such buildings tend to beplaced under the jurisdiction of departments and experts in architecture and monuments; however, thiscan result in delays if the need arises to salvage artworks or ethnographic materials that have long been

stored within. For example, if a building has a 150-year history, there is a possibility that 150-year-old
objects remain inside the building. If at least four generations of people have lived in the building overthose 150 years, it may also contain objects telling the history and culture of each era. In such situations,lack of coordination between the immovable and movable heritage sectors impedes the disaster risk
management and salvage of movable cultural properties.

The activities of the National Task Force for the CH-DRM Network that I run currently contains twentythree organizations, and we continue to focus our efforts on movable cultural heritage. Nevertheless,even after the recent Kumamoto earthquake of April 2016 or after the heavy rains of Northern Kyushu that
occurred in July 2017, we were still not able to collaborate eﬀectively with architecture and monuments
departments and experts.

The UNESCO Chair Programme International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural
Heritage (ITC) has for many years been organized by Ritsumeikan Universityʼs Institute of Disaster

Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage (D-MUCH), which researches how to protect the historical andcultural city of Kyoto from natural disasters and ﬁre with primarily an urban engineering and architectural
perspective. For this reason, past themes of the ITC have tended to focus on immovable heritage such asbuildings and townscapes. This year, the National Institutes for Cultural Heritageʼs decision to participate
as part of its CH-DRM Network Task Force activities comes partially out of its wish that the preservation of
movable cultural property be covered in the ITC.

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to D-MUCH director Takeyuki Okubo and all his colleagues
and staﬀ for their work in organizing this training course and symposium in conjunction with experts frominternational organizations such as UNESCO and ICCROM. And, as it was our ﬁrst time participating, I see
areas in which we can improve next time.

This training is intended for trainees from abroad; however, the particular circumstances in Japan and thecharacteristics of its cultural properties may not necessarily be analogous to those in foreign countries.

Nevertheless, the disaster risk mitigation, salvage, and conservation of movable cultural heritage housed
within historic buildings are extremely important issues for Japan. I hope that our co-organization of the
ITC will lead to a strengthened cooperative relationship with D-MUCH and new pathways to solutions

Ken OKADA

Head, Promotion Oﬃce, Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Mitigation Network
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage

Translated by Melissa RINNE, Kyoto National Museum

Epilogue
The International Training Course, Ritsumeikan University is the first attempt at the international levelto provide high level education opportunities on the topic of natural disasters for people in the cultural

heritage ﬁeld and on the topic of cultural heritage for people in the natural disaster ﬁeld. In the 12 years
that the course has been implemented, we have had 1242 applicants and 127 people from 56 countries

have been trained. The accepted number of trainee is only 10.2% of applicants and it is small percentage.
Particularly in this year 2017, we could receive 11 people as trainee among 235 applicants and this is
only 4.7%. We, therefore, have been proposed to increase the number of trainee from past applicants

and people of relevant ﬁelds, both of domestic and international communities. The course, however, isﬁnancially supported by COE (Center of Excellence) program of Japanese Government and the budgetof the training course is not large enough to accept all the applicants because the course is one of the
projects of COE program.

Recognizing our activities and achievements for ITC, the Independent Administrative Institution National

Institutes for Cultural Heritage（NICH）has started to coordinate for the training course from the ﬁscal
year 2017. This is the big support after the Toyota Foundation supported the course for three years from2014 to 2016. Therefore, the training course was able to compliment the interdisciplinary part of disasterrisk management for movable heritage and intangible heritage which have been not fully covered by
Ritsumeikan university. Furthermore, we have been proposed to establish a follow-up program from thegraduates of our course and people of relevant ﬁelds, which is to establish a similar course to our training

course in their counties and communities. We will carry out a follow-up training course in March, 2018 in

Bagan, Myanmar where people need to plan a long-term recovery strategy and better resilient heritage
rehabilitation from the earthquake which occurred in August, 2016. This follow-up initiative is cooperated
with SEAMEO-SPAFA (Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization- Southeast Asian Regional

Centre for Archaeology and Fine Arts) and ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of the Preservation
and Restoration of Cultural Property)

In this way, we have cooperated with national and international community by the course and throughthe course. Hereby we would like to express our heart-full gratitude to the all cooperated organizations. A
noteworthy fact is that trainees gave us the best assessment for our course. We promise to continue thistraining course as one of our most important missions.

Kenzo TOKI

Representative, Enhancement of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Cultural Heritage andRisk Management and Post-training Follow-up
Professor, Ritsumeikan University

Appendix

List of Resource Persons(As of 2017 September)
Kozo WATANABE

Teiichi MIYAKAWA

Kenzo TOKI

Atsushi KOMIYA

Urban Cultural Heritage,
Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH)

Masamitsu FUJIMOTO

Vice Chancellor,
Ritsumeikan University

Professor,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for

Assistant Manager, Cultural Asset Division,
Board of Education, Kyoto Prefecture

Takeyuki OKUBO

Associate Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,

College of Science and Engineering,
Ritsumeikan University

Ksenia CHMUTINA

Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,

Director,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for

Urban Cultural Heritage,
Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH)

College of Science and Engineering,
Ritsumeikan University

Lecturer,
Sustainable and Resilient Urbanism,

The School of Civil and Building Engineering,
Loughborough University

Rohit JIGYASU

Lee BOSHER

Professor,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for

Loughborough University

UNESCO Chair Holder,
President of ICCOMOS-ICORP,

Urban Cultural Heritage,
Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH)
Dowon KIM

Associate Professor,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for

Urban Cultural Heritage,
Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH)
Ken OKADA

Head, Promotion Oﬃce, Cultural Heritage Disaster
Risk Mitigation Network (CH-DRM Net),
Independent Administrative Institution National
Institutes for Cultural Heritage (NICH)
Naoko USHITANI ITAYA
Associate Professor,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for
Urban Cultural Heritage,
Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH)
160

Senior Researcher, Curatorial Division,
Kyoto National Museum

Senior Lecturer,
The School of Civil and Building Engineering,

Rashmin GUNASEKERA
Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist,
GSURR, World Bank
Shinta YOSHITOMI
Professor,

Department of Civil Engineering,
College of Science and Engineering,
Ritsumeikan University
Ryoichi FUKAGAWA
Professor,

Department of Civil Engineering,
College of Science and Engineering,
Ritsumeikan University

Yoshifumi SATOFUKA
Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
College of Science and Engineering,
Ritsumeikan University

Kenji SAWAI

Yohsei KOHDZUMA

Kazumasa HANAOKA

Nara National Research Institute forCultural Properties

Professor Emeritus,
Setsunan University

Associate Professor,
Department of Humanities,
Geography Major,
College of Letters,

Ritsumeikan University

Director,
Center for Archaeological Operations,

Yuko ISHIDA

Senior Researcher,
Research Organization of Science and Technology,
Ritsumeikan University

Junko FURIHATA
Chair,

Takehiro SAKAGUCHI
Director,

Kyoto National Museum

Daisuke IDO
Senior Priest,

Department of Conservation Science,
Curatorial Division,

Melissa RINNE
Research Fellow for International Aﬀairs,
Kyoto National Museum
Aparna TANDON
Project Manager,

Corine WEGENER
Director,

Kumano Nachi Taisha
Yasumichi MURAKAMI
Senior Administrator,

Hyogo Pref. Board of Education
Rohit Kumar RANJITKAR
Nepal Director,

Kathmandu Valley Preservation Trust (KVPT)

Smithsonian Cultural Rescue Initiative,Oﬃce of the Provost/Under Secretary for

Wesley Webb CHEEK
Urban Studies Doctoral Fellow,

Kimiko MEKATA

Yoshihiro HIRAOKA

Fire Prevention Section,
Fire Prevention Division,

Department of Design Information,
Miyagi University

Museums and Research,
Smithsonian Institution

Deputy Manager,
Section Head, Cultural Property,

Kyoto City Fire Department
Akira NATANI
Chief,

Fire Prevention Section,
The Higashiyama Fire Station
Noriyoshi TSURUOKAManager,
Cultural Asset Division,
Board of Education,
Kyoto Prefecture

AppendixCollections Unit, ICCROM

Wakayama Sabo Research and Education Institute

City, Culture and Community,
Tulane University

Professor,
Architecture Design Laboratory,

Kai Ube Prasad WEISE

Architect,
Planners' Alliance for the Himalayan &Allied Regions (PAHAR Nepal)

Elke SELTER
Expert Emergency Response,
Emergency Preparedness and Response Unit,
Culture Sector, UNESCO

161

Giovanni BOCCARDI

Head,
Emergency Response Unit,

UNESCO World Heritage Centre
Rajib SHAW
Professor,

Graduate School of Media and Governance,
Keio University
Joseph Allan KING

Director of the Sites Unit, ICCROM
Hiromichi KUBOTAHead,Intangible Cultural Properties Section,
Tokyo National Research Institute forCultural Properties

Sadahiko TANAKA
Specialist for Cultural Properties/ Architect,
Architecture and Other Structures Division,
Department of Cultural Properties,

Agency for Cultural Aﬀairs, Government of Japan
Mingji CUI
Senior Researcher,

Kinugasa Research Organization,
Ritsumeikan University
Go TANIBATA

Senior Researcher,
Kinugasa Research Organization,
Ritsumeikan University

162

List of Participants
Dorji WANGCHUK

Sayma IQBALNational Museum of Bhutan

INTACH, Kashmir Chapter

Conservator,

Lead Conservation Consultant,

Abner Omaging LAWANGEN

Bertrand Pascal LAVEDRINEManagement Oﬃcer,

The Centre de recherche sur la Conservation,

Local Disaster Risk Reduction andLocal Government of Tublay, Benguet, Philippines

Director,

National Museum of Natural History

Hamit BİRTANE

Domenico GRECO

Directorate of Gallipoli Historical Site

University of Salerno, ICOMOS/ICORP Italy

Technical Expert,

Civil Engineer ‒ Young Researcher,

Innocent Hudson MANKHWALA

Khin Aye YEE

Department of Culture - National Archives of Malawi

Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience Global Practice,

Archivist - (Conservation Section),

General Manager,

George Town World Heritage Incorporated
Victor MARCHEZINI
Researcher,

National Centre for Monitoring and Early Warning of
Natural Disasters (CEMADEN)
Virasith PHOMSOUVANH
Acting Deputy Director,

Remote Sensing Center, Ministry of Natural Resourceand Environment (MONRE)

World Bank Group, World Bank, Myanmar

Appendix

Ming Chee ANG

Operation Oﬃcer,<Observer>

Chan Min PARK
Curator,National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage<Observer>

Sophie ABRAHAM

Junior Professional Oﬃcer,

Disaster Risk Reduction, Emergency Preparedness &Response Unit, Culture Sector
UNESCO

163

Photos of ITC 2017164

A lecture by Cultural Asset Division, Kyoto Prefecture

A Site Visit of Kiyomizu-dera Conservation Place

A Site visit of Preservation District (Citizen Hydrant)

A Field Work for Risk Assessment at Ponto-cho

A lecture at R-DMUCH (Landslide)

An Exercise at the Kyoto National Museum

A Salvage Exercise at the Kyoto National Museum

A Lecture of Fireﬁghting Facilities at Tofuku-ji WHSAn Observation of Wakayama Sabo Research and Education Intitute

A Site Visit of Nachi-waterfall at Kumano Nachi Shrine

A Workshop for Designing Recovery Process

The Presentation and Discussion

Final Presentation of Case Study Projects and Discussion

A Group Photo of International Symposium

A Farewell and the Certiﬁcate Ceremony

Appendix

A Sight Visiting of Yokogaki Ridge

165

United Nations(GXFDWLRQDO6FLHQWL¿FDQG
Cultural Organization
国際連合
教育科学文化機関

UNESCO Chair on
Cultural Heritage and Risk Management,
Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan
立命館大学 ユネスコ・チェア「文化遺産と危機管理」 京都・日本